Re: [jamboost] bjam in gcc 2.95

From: Jeremy Swigart (tgdrevil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-25 08:16:59

Apologies for not clarifying. I'm acting as middle man
for a friend who is the one doing most of our linux
stuff. Here is what he says.

When trying to run build.sh by just typing
"./build.sh" it gives a "bad interpreter error". When
using "sh ./build.sh" (like in the boost docs), it
returns several "unknown command" errors followed by a
syntax error near the first defined function in the
script (specifying the toolset like "sh ./build.sh
gcc" shows the same behaviour).

We don't need gcc-2.95, we need glibc-2.2. That is not
directly related. For example Woody uses gcc-2.95 or
gcc-3.04 and Suse uses gcc-3.2. Both with glibc-2.2.5.

--- Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> tgdrevil wrote:
> > I've been using bjam to compile a bot library in
> linux using debian
> > sarge. Everything is fine and dandy on there,
> however I would like to
> > compile the bot using gcc 2.95 for a couple of the
> games we support,
> > because some administrators still run old versions
> and for whatever
> > reason aren't always able to upgrade their linux
> game servers.
> > 
> > So I install debian woody, and also tried suse 8.1
> and of course the
> > bjam executable we are using was compiled with
> glibc 2.3 so it wont
> > work, also I am unable to compile bjam on this
> platform either.
> > 
> > Following the instructions on
> >
>
http://boost.org/tools/build/jam_src/index.html#building_bjam
> didn't
> > work. bjam wouldn't compile. matter o fact, I
> couldn't even compile
> > bjam on the newer debian sarge. I also tried
> pre-build bjam and the
> > oldest one not compiled with glibc 2.3 is 3.1.4
> which when tried it
> > said our jam file required 3.1.7 or newer.
> > 
> > Anyone have any advice for getting bjam working in
> an older distro?
> > Any help is appreciated.
> 
> 1. Please be more specific as to what doesn't work.
> What errors are you 
> getting? Is it at runtime? Is it at compile time?
> Which version of the 
> source? From CVS, or one of the releases?
> 
> 2. Which combination do you want to have work? Which
> libc version? Is it 
> gcc 2.95.3, or 2.96, or something else.
> 
> 3. The one thing you _can_ try is to add the
> "-static" option when 
> building it so that the libc is included in the
> executable. And them 
> moving it to the machine you need it to work on.
> You'd need to change 
> the lines in build.jam that look like:
> 
> ## GCC 2.x, 3.x
> toolset gcc gcc : "-o " : -D
> : -pedantic
> [ opt --release : [ opt --symbols : -g : -s ]
> -O3 -finline-functions ]
> [ opt --debug : -g -O0 -fno-inline ] ;
> 
> To:
> 
> ## GCC 2.x, 3.x
> toolset gcc gcc : "-o " : -D
> : -pedantic -static
> [ opt --release : [ opt --symbols : -g : -s ]
> -O3 -finline-functions ]
> [ opt --debug : -g -O0 -fno-inline ] ;
> 
> 
> But I'd *really* like to have it just work. So if
> you could help out 
> with #1 and #2 above.
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
> -- Redshift Software, Inc. -
> http://redshift-software.com
> -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
> -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim -
> Grafik/jabber.org
> 

____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com