Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:36:27PM +0200, victor cruceru wrote:
> Hi All,
> Please find below.
> 
> > Message: 16
> > Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:44:03 -0700
> > From: Scott Long <scottl_at_samsco.org>
> > Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64
> 
> > > 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
> >
> Because it was my decision to use libdisk I have to answer to this question.
> First, only one bsnmp module is linking to this libdisk (a module for
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB).
...
> I can try to replace the usage of libdisk with something else which
> will do the job of detecting the disks and the partitions in a running

How does one use 'snmp_hostres'?  The AMD64 world builds fine with this patch:

diff -u -u -0 -r1.2 Makefile
--- usr.sbin/bsnmpd/modules/snmp_hostres/Makefile       9 Jan 2006 13:01:26 -0000       1.2
+++ usr.sbin/bsnmpd/modules/snmp_hostres/Makefile       12 Jan 2006 23:20:48 -0000
_at__at_ -72,2 +72,2 _at__at_
-DPADD= ${LIBKVM} ${LIBDEVINFO} ${LIBM} ${LIBDISK} ${LIBMEMSTAT}
-LDADD= -lkvm -ldevinfo -lm -ldisk -lmemstat
+DPADD= ${LIBKVM} ${LIBDEVINFO} ${LIBM} ${LIBMEMSTAT}
+LDADD= -lkvm -ldevinfo -lm -lmemstat

So what would I do with 'snmp_hostres' to show me unresolved symbol errors?

Can we commit this patch for now, until things are figured out?

diff -u -u -0 -r1.9 Makefile
--- usr.sbin/bsnmpd/modules/Makefile    9 Jan 2006 12:34:07 -0000       1.9
+++ usr.sbin/bsnmpd/modules/Makefile    13 Jan 2006 02:00:31 -0000
_at__at_ -10 +10 _at__at_
-       snmp_hostres \
+       ${_snmp_hostres} \
_at__at_ -17,0 +18,4 _at__at_
+.if ${MACHINE_ARCH} != "amd64"
+_snmp_hostres=         snmp_hostres
+.endif
+

-- 
-- David  (obrien_at_FreeBSD.org)
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon?