On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Yang Tse <yangsita_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> At those runs buildconf was supposed to append m4/reentrant.m4 to
> acinclude.m4. I suppose that no CVS checkout was taking place and
> that would explain the increased concatenation. But it was also
> supposed to have removed m4/reentrant.m4 in first instance.
> http://cool.haxx.se/cvs.cgi/curl/buildconf.diff?r1=1.55&r2=1.56

cvs update failed due to
C acinclude.m4
C ares/acinclude.m4

I fixed that now (well, after the autobuild just before) by manually
removing them. The build still fails with the memory exhausted problem
though.

[...]
> I suppose that you have no way to knowing if all tests passed when
> building gm4 1.4.5 ?
>
> And if you build your own gm4 1.4.5 ?

No on both, as it's installed from blastwave.org with pkg-get install gm4

> By bag of tricks is exhausted for this, the same as gm4 1.4.5 memory ;-)
>
> If it helps you to further investigate this:
>
> * buildconf calls aclocal, which calls autom4te, which calls m4.
> * aclocal is supposed to be installed with automake.
> * autom4te is supposed to be installed with autoconf.
>
> What about reinstalling autoconf and or automake while keeping gm4 1.4.5 ?

Those are also from blastwave.org.. and checksummed etc. I notice
though that automake is version 1.10.1, and didn't Daniel say
something a while ago about problems with 1.10 on Solaris?
Unfortunately there's only one automake version available from
Blastwave.org, unlike my Debian system where there are several
versions available (and where I use 1.8).

(As mentioned before I can of course run the builds with my own built
tools, like I did with the gm4 1.4.11 test, but then others may run
into the same problem - using blastwave.org for all 3party tools is
very common I believe).

I was in any case planning on posting a problem report on gm4 1.4.5 on
blastwave.org, but my login account doesn't seem to get validated due
to I don't know what problem.

> And trying another machine?

That's unfortunately the only Solaris 10 machine I have available at
the moment (an Ultra 60 with 512MB RAM and lots of swap). I will have
another (different iron) in a couple of months.

> The number of 'seen' macros, the ones actually used is 165. And the
> number of 'found' macros, the ones scanned in all packages, is 232. I
> don't think this are too big numbers. As a matter of fact this works
> on other systems.

I guess it would have been more efficient if I did the trial&error
testing myself on the machine, unfortunately the automake/autoconf
stuff is all a nightmarish horror to me - the only thought I always
get into my head when staring at autoconf is "there _must_ be some
better way!" (and I've looked but haven't found any substitute.)

-Tor
Received on 2008-07-30