Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

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_at_ and
>>phk_at_ Cc:ed.
>>
>>: RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/lib/libdisk/Makefile,v
>>: Working file: Makefile
>>: head: 1.44
>>: branch:
>>: locks: strict
>>: access list:
>>: keyword substitution: kv
>>: total revisions: 65;    selected revisions: 1
>>: description:
>>: ----------------------------
>>: 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.
> 
> 
> Cheers,

One way or another, please fix it.  Why is bsnmp linking to libdisk 
anyways?  It's an absolutely horrible library.

Scott