Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:57:59 +0000
From:      Mike Clarke <jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Problems building en-openoffice.org-GB-3.1.1 from ports
Message-ID:  <201001021557.59944.jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
After successfully moving from 6.4 to 8.0 by doing a clean install I've 
embarked on the task of rebuilding OpenOffice from ports :-(

I'm getting a confusing error in the config stage:

------------------------------------------------------------
===>  Configuring for en-openoffice.org-GB-3.1.1
<snip>
checking for 
gperf... /backup/tmp/ports/work/usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-3/work/OOO310_m19/solenv/bin/gperf
checking gperf version... /libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared 
object "libstdc++.so.5" not found, required by "gperf"
test: : bad number
configure: error: too old, you need at least 3.0.0
===>  Script "configure" failed unexpectedly.
------------------------------------------------------------

True enough I don't have a native libstdc++.so.5 .

/usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd6.4/3.4.6/libstdc++.so.6
/usr/local/lib/compat/libstdc++.so.4
/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
/usr/compat/linux/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5.0.7
/usr/compat/linux/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.10

The only similar problem I could find on Google was a post to the 
freebsd-ports list 2 years ago where someone had a problem with a 
pre-built package of OpenOffice except that it required libstdc++.so.6 
and he had libstdc++.so.5. So I'm puzzled why now, 2 years later, 
OpenOffice needs an older version of libstdc++.so.

As an experiment I added a link for libstdc++.so.5 in /usr/lib and this 
stopped the message about libstdc++.so.5 but produced a new one about 
libm.so.4 not being found, and still complained about gperf being too 
old.

I've now put this task on the back burner while I ask for advice here 
instead of digging an even deeper hole for myself.

I assume that "at least 3.0.0" refers to the version of gperf but I 
already have gperf-3.0.3.

Does this look like a bug or have I done something wrong?

-- 
Mike Clarke



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201001021557.59944.jmc-freebsd2>