Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 10:35:03 -0500 (EST) From: Adam K Kirchhoff <adamk@voicenet.com> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: __sF Message-ID: <20021102102110.A874-100000@sorrow.ashke.com> In-Reply-To: <200211021513.gA2FD0d0071422@grimreaper.grondar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Mark Murray wrote: > > In both cases, FreeBSD doesn't seem to like __sF. > > This is being discussed /ad nauseam/ on the lists. If you are running > CURRENT, the onus is on you to keep up with developments. :-) True. A few days after the first time I encountered this problem, I had searched through the archives and seen a very recent discussion about how it was fixed it -CURRENT about two days after I had upgraded. So I upgraded again and, indeed, the problem was fixed. And this past time, though, I did check out the archives again... I came across this post: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=1438233+1440468+/usr/local/www/db/text/2002/freebsd-current/20021020.freebsd-current It indicated that __sF was added back into libc. > > Now, the first time this happened, I simply cvsuped a couple days > > later and the problem went away, but now it's back, which is making me > > think I never really solved the problem the first time around. > > > > Any ideas on how to permanently fix this problem? > > Rebuild _everything_. Ports, libraries, dependancies, the lot. So is the current position on the matter that __sF is going to remain out of libc? If that's the case, fine, I have no objections to recompiling all my ports, but the fact of the matter is that there doesn't seem to be much agreement about whether or not that's the case, seeing how __sF keeps getting removed and re-added. Adam To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021102102110.A874-100000>