Thread: 8.3beta2 fails to compile on Centos5 x86_64
Hi all Trying to rebuild postgresql-8.3beta2-1PGDG.f7.src.rpm on my Centos 5.0 x86_64, I get the error "your platform is not threadsafe" during config. When I use the --enable-thread-safety-force option, the build fails with the message undefined reference to pthread_sigmask during the libpq compile. Is this a known issue? Is there a library I should install? Is there a workaround? Regards --Marcel
"Marcel Gsteiger" <Marcel.Gsteiger@milprog.ch> writes:
> Trying to rebuild postgresql-8.3beta2-1PGDG.f7.src.rpm on my Centos 5.0 x86_64, I get the error "your platform is not
threadsafe" during config. When I use the --enable-thread-safety-force option, the build fails with the message
> undefined reference to pthread_sigmask
> during the libpq compile.
Do you have glibc-devel installed? It sounds like you might be missing
/usr/lib64/libpthread.so, which is in that RPM. However, we do
BuildRequire glibc-devel, so I'm not sure how you managed to try to
build the RPM without it.
regards, tom lane
>> Trying to rebuild postgresql-8.3beta2-1PGDG.f7.src.rpm on my Centos 5.0 x86_64, I get the error "your platform is notthread safe" during config. When I use the --enable-thread-safety-force option, the build fails with the message >> undefined reference to pthread_sigmask >> during the libpq compile. >Do you have glibc-devel installed? It sounds like you might be missing >/usr/lib64/libpthread.so, which is in that RPM. However, we do >BuildRequire glibc-devel, so I'm not sure how you managed to try to >build the RPM without it. glibc-devel-2.5-12 is installed, /usr/lib64/libpthread.so exists. This is a very basic CentOS 5 x86_64 install from DVD,'yum update' afterwards. I only installed the packages that were in the BuildRequire list of the SRPM. I would like toset up this box just for testing my 8.1 and 8.2 database apps against the new version. Pls let me know if you need some files in the BUILD directory (e.g. config.log). My only diff from the original SPEC file is: 308c308 < %configure --disable-rpath --enable-thread-safety-force \ --- > %configure --disable-rpath \ Regards --Marcel
"Marcel Gsteiger" <Marcel.Gsteiger@milprog.ch> writes: >> Do you have glibc-devel installed? It sounds like you might be missing >> /usr/lib64/libpthread.so, which is in that RPM. However, we do >> BuildRequire glibc-devel, so I'm not sure how you managed to try to >> build the RPM without it. > glibc-devel-2.5-12 is installed, /usr/lib64/libpthread.so exists. This > is a very basic CentOS 5 x86_64 install from DVD, 'yum update' > afterwards. I only installed the packages that were in the > BuildRequire list of the SRPM. Hmm. I suspect either we're short a BuildRequire or two, or you missed something that's considered part of the standard minimum build environment. The "exceptions" list on this page shows what Red Hat considers the core set of packages that needn't be BuildRequire'd: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions However, none of those look particularly likely to result in the failure you're seeing here :-(. Could you send along the config.log output? regards, tom lane
>>> Do you have glibc-devel installed? It sounds like you might be missing >>> /usr/lib64/libpthread.so, which is in that RPM. However, we do >>> BuildRequire glibc-devel, so I'm not sure how you managed to try to >>> build the RPM without it. >> glibc-devel-2.5-12 is installed, /usr/lib64/libpthread.so exists. This >> is a very basic CentOS 5 x86_64 install from DVD, 'yum update' >> afterwards. I only installed the packages that were in the >> BuildRequire list of the SRPM. >Hmm. I suspect either we're short a BuildRequire or two, or you missed >something that's considered part of the standard minimum build >environment. The "exceptions" list on this page shows what Red Hat >considers the core set of packages that needn't be BuildRequire'd: >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions >However, none of those look particularly likely to result in the >failure you're seeing here :-(. Could you send along the config.log >output? Thanks for your tip. In fact, my "basic packages, customize later"-type install from DVD did not install the following packagesfrom the mentioned list: gcc-c++ libstdc++-devel redhat-rpm-config After I have installed these, everything now works perfectly. regards --Marcel
"Marcel Gsteiger" <Marcel.Gsteiger@milprog.ch> writes: >> Hmm. I suspect either we're short a BuildRequire or two, or you missed >> something that's considered part of the standard minimum build >> environment. The "exceptions" list on this page shows what Red Hat >> considers the core set of packages that needn't be BuildRequire'd: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions >> However, none of those look particularly likely to result in the >> failure you're seeing here :-(. Could you send along the config.log >> output? > Thanks for your tip. In fact, my "basic packages, customize later"-type install from DVD did not install the followingpackages from the mentioned list: > gcc-c++ > libstdc++-devel > redhat-rpm-config > After I have installed these, everything now works perfectly. Interesting. We don't do any C++ stuff, so I would hope that the first two of those are irrelevant. redhat-rpm-config, however, might well be relevant. I remember Devrim running into an odd build failure on a machine where it wasn't installed. I wonder if it'd be worth explicitly BuildRequire'ing redhat-rpm-config in the PGDG SRPM? I don't feel the need to do it in Fedora/RHEL, because as mentioned there's an explicit policy not to for those projects. But it seems the PGDG RPMs get rebuilt in a rather wider variety of environments. regards, tom lane
Re: [Pgsqlrpms-hackers] Antw: Re: 8.3beta2 fails to compile on Centos5 x86_64
From
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Date:
Hi, On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 10:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > After I have installed these, everything now works perfectly. > > Interesting. We don't do any C++ stuff, so I would hope that the > first two of those are irrelevant. Exactly. > redhat-rpm-config, however, might well be relevant. I remember Devrim > running into an odd build failure on a machine where it wasn't > installed. Yes. All Fedora clones that are < 7 (CentOS 4,5 , RHEL 4,5 and Fedora <=6) have this problem. I have filed a bug report against this, and here is the reply (and bug was closed) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=355551 This is definitely a bug, but since this package is a must for building packages (see below), there is nothing we can do. > I wonder if it'd be worth explicitly BuildRequire'ing > redhat-rpm-config in the PGDG SRPM? I don't feel the need to do it in > Fedora/RHEL, because as mentioned there's an explicit policy not to > for those projects. But it seems the PGDG RPMs get rebuilt in a > rather wider variety of environments. I did not add it since redhat-rpm-config is a must per: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-4cadce5e79d38a63cad3941de1dadc9d25d67d30-2 (Of course I don't have to stick to Fedora guidelines for PGDG RPMs, but still...) But we can mention about that in README, etc. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ , RHCE PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Attachment
Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@CommandPrompt.com> writes: > On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 10:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> redhat-rpm-config, however, might well be relevant. I remember Devrim >> running into an odd build failure on a machine where it wasn't >> installed. > Yes. All Fedora clones that are < 7 (CentOS 4,5 , RHEL 4,5 and Fedora > <=6) have this problem. > I have filed a bug report against this, and here is the reply (and bug > was closed) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=355551 Hmmm ... Panu has a point, I guess. His reasoning seems to be that redhat-rpm-config is required for sane behavior on RHEL/Fedora platforms, but it might not be required --- or even available --- on other RPM-using platforms, therefore it's not appropriate for either rpm-build or individual SRPMs to Require: it. It would seem to me, though, that that makes it a distribution bug: Red Hat distros should ensure that redhat-rpm-config is always installed. Otherwise it's possible to mis-build on Red Hat platforms, which is exactly what all the package-require infrastructure is supposed to prevent. *Somebody* other than the end user ought to be taking care of this. I've added a comment about this to the above BZ entry. regards, tom lane