[head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64
scottl at samsco.org
Wed Jan 11 17:44:06 PST 2006
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 04:23:02PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>>>Wouldn't it then make sense just to build a shared libdisk? Is there a
>>>reason not to have one?
>>Here's the original reason. I'm not sure if it still holds. peter@ and
>>: RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/lib/libdisk/Makefile,v
>>: Working file: Makefile
>>: head: 1.44
>>: locks: strict
>>: access list:
>>: keyword substitution: kv
>>: total revisions: 65; selected revisions: 1
>>: revision 1.12
>>: date: 1996/03/17 19:02:07; author: peter; state: Exp; lines: +1 -0
>>: Repository copy src/release/libdisk to src/lib/libdisk as per recent
>>: discussion on -core about disk partitioning tools etc.
>>: Add NOPIC=yes to Makefile to prevent any possibility of version mismatch
>>: because of the potential grave consequences. (as suggested by phk)
>>: Note that this is also on RELENG_2_1_0, since the sysinstall stuff is
>>: hopefully going to remain in sync.
> As a safe measure, we can build and install a special PIC archive,
> similar to libc_pic.a and libgcc_pic.a, and use it here. This is
> all in an assumption that it's still unsafe to produce the libdisk.so.
One way or another, please fix it. Why is bsnmp linking to libdisk
anyways? It's an absolutely horrible library.
More information about the freebsd-amd64