Re: compilation problems with Debian Woody

Miek Gieben <[email protected]> Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:39:13 +0100
Newsgroups gmane.comp.sysutils.backup.hdup.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>
[On 06 Jan, @ 16:28, Richard wrote in "[hdup-user] compilation proble ..."]
> I am trying to compile hdup2 under Debian woody.    It compiled fine on 
> my SuSE 9.1 Pro machine but I get a lot of warnings and a failure on my 
> Debian system.
> 
> The main difference between the two systems as far as I can see is Woody 
> uses an earlyer version of glib.  The configure script returns:

yes, this is because of an older gcc. I posted the fix for this
in a totally unrelated thread today. Alas... the fix is not in 2.0.4

> checking for GLIB - version >= 2.0.0... yes (version 2.0.1)
> 
> I got it to compile with the warnings but no parse error by changing the 
> order of the declarations in the walker.c file
> 
>         /* these hold the patters */
>         /*
>         reg_exp dexclude; dexclude.max = 0;
>         reg_exp dinclude; dinclude.max = 0;
>         reg_exp fexclude; fexclude.max = 0;
>         reg_exp finclude; finclude.max = 0;
>         */

this is fixed in subversion, but what you do amounts to the same. The
assignments need to come after the declerations.

>         /* declare everything then use them. original version seems to 
> work fine on newer versions of glibc */
>         reg_exp dexclude, dinclude, fexclude, finclude;
>         dexclude.max = 0; dinclude.max = 0; fexclude.max = 0; 
> finclude.max =0;
> The output of the make command is as follows:
> 
> In file included from config.h:47,
>                  from hdup.h:12,
>                  from hdup.c:9:
> /usr/include/sys/param.h:58: warning: `MIN' redefined
> /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:137: warning: this is the location 
> of the previous definition

My guess is that the warnings are harmless, but ugly. There is nothing
I can do about them, because neither glib.h nor param.h are under my
control (and I need both).

> I don't think there is anything to worry about the redefenition as it 
> seems that both defenitions are the same,  just formatted slightly 
> differently

ah :-) Just my point (I read and answered your mail in on go),

grtz,

--
  --- Miek