Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[CentOS 6.3] rpmbuild bad exit status
295 views
Skip to first unread message
Ohmster
Jul 28, 2012, 1:58:15 AM7/28/12
to
I want a decent CLI client for IRC and BitchX has always been rather full
featured, runs in a term window, nice colors, and runs on the CLI. yum does
not have it, and only on repoforge could I find the rpm files. I tried the
regular rpm, not happening. libcrypto and libcurses wrong version. Decided
to use rpmbuild as non root to build a binary that should work on my
system. Now rpmbuild wants me to install the devel packs for ncurses and
libcrypto. Sounds good, yum can handle that easily. Now the build..
$ rpmbuild --rebuild ~/rpms/BitchX-1.1-1.rf.src.rpm
[..]
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.r2kv2w (%build)
So, I did not get my binary, got the log of the install, and the rpm-tmp
output. I do not want to clog Usenet with log files, so I upped them to my
personal webspace in case someone would not mind having a look that can
decipher what went wrong.
Here are the files, first being the install log, 2nd is the created tmp
file.
http://home.comcast.net/~theohmster/Linux/bitchxfail.txt
http://home.comcast.net/~theohmster/Linux/rpm-tmp.r2kv2w.txt
Can someone who is familiar with rpmbuild errors take a look at my files
and give me some idea of what went wrong and how or if I can fix it? Thnx.
--
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
featured, runs in a term window, nice colors, and runs on the CLI. yum does
not have it, and only on repoforge could I find the rpm files. I tried the
regular rpm, not happening. libcrypto and libcurses wrong version. Decided
to use rpmbuild as non root to build a binary that should work on my
system. Now rpmbuild wants me to install the devel packs for ncurses and
libcrypto. Sounds good, yum can handle that easily. Now the build..
$ rpmbuild --rebuild ~/rpms/BitchX-1.1-1.rf.src.rpm
[..]
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.r2kv2w (%build)
So, I did not get my binary, got the log of the install, and the rpm-tmp
output. I do not want to clog Usenet with log files, so I upped them to my
personal webspace in case someone would not mind having a look that can
decipher what went wrong.
Here are the files, first being the install log, 2nd is the created tmp
file.
http://home.comcast.net/~theohmster/Linux/bitchxfail.txt
http://home.comcast.net/~theohmster/Linux/rpm-tmp.r2kv2w.txt
Can someone who is familiar with rpmbuild errors take a look at my files
and give me some idea of what went wrong and how or if I can fix it? Thnx.
--
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
kcGSH6nC
Jul 28, 2012, 6:16:52 AM7/28/12
to
/usr/include/sys/stat.h
However, the real problem:
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
ld can't find something it's looking for. On a whim, can you run
'ldconfig' as root? No arguments required, and you should get no output.
Then try to build it again.
You also might try installing yum-utils then running:
yum-builddep <package name>
(you can point it to the .src.rpm instead of a package name)
kcGSH6nC
Jul 28, 2012, 6:19:35 AM7/28/12
to
without quotes) to enable verbose linking. You'll get a lot more console
spew, but much more information relating to exactly what is going wrong.
Eg, try:
CFLAGS="-Wl,-V" CXXFLAGS="-Wl,-V" rpmbuild --rebuild
~/rpms/BitchX-1.1-1.rf.src.rpm
Richard Kettlewell
Jul 28, 2012, 6:58:26 AM7/28/12
to
Ohmster <ro...@dev.nul.invalid> writes:
> Here are the files, first being the install log, 2nd is the created tmp
> file.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~theohmster/Linux/bitchxfail.txt
> http://home.comcast.net/~theohmster/Linux/rpm-tmp.r2kv2w.txt
>
> Can someone who is familiar with rpmbuild errors take a look at my files
> and give me some idea of what went wrong and how or if I can fix it? Thnx.
The bug is in BitchX's irc_std.h:
> Here are the files, first being the install log, 2nd is the created tmp
> file.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~theohmster/Linux/bitchxfail.txt
> http://home.comcast.net/~theohmster/Linux/rpm-tmp.r2kv2w.txt
>
> Can someone who is familiar with rpmbuild errors take a look at my files
> and give me some idea of what went wrong and how or if I can fix it? Thnx.
#ifndef __GNUC__
# define __inline /* delete gcc keyword */
# define __A(x)
# define __N
# define __inline__
#else
# if (__GNUC__ >= 2) && (__GNUC_MINOR__ >= 7)
# define __A(x) __attribute__ ((format (printf, x, x + 1)))
# define __N __attribute__ ((noreturn))
# else
# define __A(x)
# define __N
# define __inline
# endif
#endif
The GCC version check is broken, so this fragment defines away __inline
with your compiler. This causes the inline function definitions in
<sys/stat.h> to become external definitions, duplicated through every
object file, leading to the duplicate symbol errors from the linker.
The bug was fixed in SVN several about four years ago, so I suggest
using a more recent version.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Ohmster
Aug 4, 2012, 2:19:05 AM8/4/12
to
kcGSH6nC <kcGS...@mailinator.net> wrote in news:%ZOQr.132316$Mp1.10737
@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com:
> First, it seems like there's something funny with your copy of
> /usr/include/sys/stat.h
>
> However, the real problem:
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> ld can't find something it's looking for. On a whim, can you run
> 'ldconfig' as root? No arguments required, and you should get no
output.
> Then try to build it again.
>
> You also might try installing yum-utils then running:
> yum-builddep <package name>
>
> (you can point it to the .src.rpm instead of a package name)
I did run ldconfig as superuser and have yum-utils installed. BitchX has
two dependency requirements that I could not satisfy for the binary,
lilbcrypto and libssl.
Running ldconfig even as root took like, a split second and this machine
does that every day on it's own, so my database of stuff is really not
outdated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$ rpm -Uvh BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libcrypto.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
libssl.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But, trying to build the src.rpm looked promising because I was prompted
to install the dev-packs for these libs and I believed that rpmbuild
would "roll it's own" from source. But, you saw what happened.
This yum-builddep <package name> appears to be a promising workaround. I
will save this post for that step if I need it. Richard Kettlewell's
explained this pretty good, it appears that he is familiar with BitchX
and it's problem. So join me in his discussion reply thread please and
perhaps something can be worked out.
Thanks for helping.
@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com:
> First, it seems like there's something funny with your copy of
> /usr/include/sys/stat.h
>
> However, the real problem:
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> ld can't find something it's looking for. On a whim, can you run
> 'ldconfig' as root? No arguments required, and you should get no
output.
> Then try to build it again.
>
> You also might try installing yum-utils then running:
> yum-builddep <package name>
>
> (you can point it to the .src.rpm instead of a package name)
two dependency requirements that I could not satisfy for the binary,
lilbcrypto and libssl.
Running ldconfig even as root took like, a split second and this machine
does that every day on it's own, so my database of stuff is really not
outdated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$ rpm -Uvh BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libcrypto.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
libssl.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But, trying to build the src.rpm looked promising because I was prompted
to install the dev-packs for these libs and I believed that rpmbuild
would "roll it's own" from source. But, you saw what happened.
This yum-builddep <package name> appears to be a promising workaround. I
will save this post for that step if I need it. Richard Kettlewell's
explained this pretty good, it appears that he is familiar with BitchX
and it's problem. So join me in his discussion reply thread please and
perhaps something can be worked out.
Thanks for helping.
Ohmster
Aug 4, 2012, 2:19:16 AM8/4/12
to
kcGSH6nC <kcGS...@mailinator.net> wrote in news:%ZOQr.132316$Mp1.10737
@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com:
@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com:
> First, it seems like there's something funny with your copy of
> /usr/include/sys/stat.h
>
> However, the real problem:
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> ld can't find something it's looking for. On a whim, can you run
> 'ldconfig' as root? No arguments required, and you should get no
output.
> Then try to build it again.
>
> You also might try installing yum-utils then running:
> yum-builddep <package name>
>
> (you can point it to the .src.rpm instead of a package name)
> /usr/include/sys/stat.h
>
> However, the real problem:
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> ld can't find something it's looking for. On a whim, can you run
> 'ldconfig' as root? No arguments required, and you should get no
output.
> Then try to build it again.
>
> You also might try installing yum-utils then running:
> yum-builddep <package name>
>
> (you can point it to the .src.rpm instead of a package name)
I did run ldconfig as superuser and have yum-utils installed. BitchX has
two dependency requirements that I could not satisfy for the binary,
lilbcrypto and libssl.
Running ldconfig even as root took like, a split second and this machine
does that every day on it's own, so my database of stuff is really not
outdated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$ rpm -Uvh BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libcrypto.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
libssl.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But, trying to build the src.rpm looked promising because I was prompted
to install the dev-packs for these libs and I believed that rpmbuild
would "roll it's own" from source. But, you saw what happened.
This yum-builddep <package name> appears to be a promising workaround. I
will save this post for that step if I need it. Richard Kettlewell's
explained this pretty good, it appears that he is familiar with BitchX
and it's problem. So join me in his discussion reply thread please and
perhaps something can be worked out.
Thanks for helping.
two dependency requirements that I could not satisfy for the binary,
lilbcrypto and libssl.
Running ldconfig even as root took like, a split second and this machine
does that every day on it's own, so my database of stuff is really not
outdated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$ rpm -Uvh BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libcrypto.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
libssl.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But, trying to build the src.rpm looked promising because I was prompted
to install the dev-packs for these libs and I believed that rpmbuild
would "roll it's own" from source. But, you saw what happened.
This yum-builddep <package name> appears to be a promising workaround. I
will save this post for that step if I need it. Richard Kettlewell's
explained this pretty good, it appears that he is familiar with BitchX
and it's problem. So join me in his discussion reply thread please and
perhaps something can be worked out.
Thanks for helping.
Ohmster
Aug 4, 2012, 2:29:33 AM8/4/12
to
Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote in
news:87k3xou...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk:
> The bug is in BitchX's irc_std.h:
>
> #ifndef __GNUC__
> # define __inline /* delete gcc keyword */
> # define __A(x)
> # define __N
> # define __inline__
> #else
> # if (__GNUC__ >= 2) && (__GNUC_MINOR__ >= 7)
> # define __A(x) __attribute__ ((format (printf, x, x + 1)))
> # define __N __attribute__ ((noreturn))
> # else
> # define __A(x)
> # define __N
> # define __inline
> # endif
> #endif
>
> The GCC version check is broken, so this fragment defines away __inline
> with your compiler. This causes the inline function definitions in
> <sys/stat.h> to become external definitions, duplicated through every
> object file, leading to the duplicate symbol errors from the linker.
>
> The bug was fixed in SVN several about four years ago, so I suggest
> using a more recent version.
I wanted binaries but they would not install, it starts looking for older
libs than what I have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$ rpm -Uvh BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libcrypto.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
libssl.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well now Richard, this looks like you are familiar with this issue and I
hope that I can find a newer version. I love the binary rpm installer and
really try to stay with it but for small programs that do not install
much. If there is an updated tarball, perhaps someone can tell me how to
install a program with rpm and tarball, so far as I know, it not only is
possible, but is supposed to work well.
http://www.bitchx.com/
As I thought, only tarball install. I got the latest one.
BitchX-1.1-final-linux.tar.gz
But this is the same version as the binary and src.rpm I had downloaded.
Can anyone give me the instructions or URL to help installing tarballs
with rpm please?
I would like BitchX to be available systemwide, but was advised against
running the install from the src.rpm as root. What would installing
BitchX from tarball with rpm do, is that dangerous too as root?
I do not get on here as much as I used to but I do wish to thank all that
replied. Now, anyone?
Install tarball with RPM?
news:87k3xou...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk:
> The bug is in BitchX's irc_std.h:
>
> #ifndef __GNUC__
> # define __inline /* delete gcc keyword */
> # define __A(x)
> # define __N
> # define __inline__
> #else
> # if (__GNUC__ >= 2) && (__GNUC_MINOR__ >= 7)
> # define __A(x) __attribute__ ((format (printf, x, x + 1)))
> # define __N __attribute__ ((noreturn))
> # else
> # define __A(x)
> # define __N
> # define __inline
> # endif
> #endif
>
> The GCC version check is broken, so this fragment defines away __inline
> with your compiler. This causes the inline function definitions in
> <sys/stat.h> to become external definitions, duplicated through every
> object file, leading to the duplicate symbol errors from the linker.
>
> The bug was fixed in SVN several about four years ago, so I suggest
> using a more recent version.
libs than what I have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$ rpm -Uvh BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
libcrypto.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
libssl.so.6 is needed by BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386
[paul@paulspcworks rpms]$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
hope that I can find a newer version. I love the binary rpm installer and
really try to stay with it but for small programs that do not install
much. If there is an updated tarball, perhaps someone can tell me how to
install a program with rpm and tarball, so far as I know, it not only is
possible, but is supposed to work well.
http://www.bitchx.com/
As I thought, only tarball install. I got the latest one.
BitchX-1.1-final-linux.tar.gz
But this is the same version as the binary and src.rpm I had downloaded.
Can anyone give me the instructions or URL to help installing tarballs
with rpm please?
I would like BitchX to be available systemwide, but was advised against
running the install from the src.rpm as root. What would installing
BitchX from tarball with rpm do, is that dangerous too as root?
I do not get on here as much as I used to but I do wish to thank all that
replied. Now, anyone?
Install tarball with RPM?
Ohmster
Aug 4, 2012, 2:53:20 AM8/4/12
to
Ohmster <ro...@dev.nul.invalid> wrote in news:XnsA0A5195834094MyBigKitty@
94.75.214.90:
> Install tarball with RPM?
Guys, I downloaded the latest version of BitchX from them at this URL:
http://www.bitchx.com/download.php
There are no binaries for us CentOS users, so I got the tarball:
BitchX-1.1-final-linux.tar.gz
rpms I have tried:
BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386.rpm
BitchX-1.1-1.rf.src.rpm
They look the same, but for archive format, one binary and the other
source.
This appears to be the same as the binary src.rpm that I was using to make
my own libcrypto and libssh requirements by using the src.rpm. As we all
know now, that failed. Richard seems to understand the BitchX problem and
recommended the latest one.
I really want to stick with system package managers to install software
whenever possible. Can I use rpmbuild to install the tarball instead of
doing it myself, like this?
http://kwave.sourceforge.net/doc/en/building_rpm_from_targz.html
Or can anyone give me links, help, or some things to pay attention to, look
out for, or try to log?
Thanks guys.
94.75.214.90:
> Install tarball with RPM?
Guys, I downloaded the latest version of BitchX from them at this URL:
http://www.bitchx.com/download.php
There are no binaries for us CentOS users, so I got the tarball:
BitchX-1.1-final-linux.tar.gz
rpms I have tried:
BitchX-1.1-1.el5.rf.i386.rpm
BitchX-1.1-1.rf.src.rpm
They look the same, but for archive format, one binary and the other
source.
This appears to be the same as the binary src.rpm that I was using to make
my own libcrypto and libssh requirements by using the src.rpm. As we all
know now, that failed. Richard seems to understand the BitchX problem and
recommended the latest one.
I really want to stick with system package managers to install software
whenever possible. Can I use rpmbuild to install the tarball instead of
doing it myself, like this?
http://kwave.sourceforge.net/doc/en/building_rpm_from_targz.html
Or can anyone give me links, help, or some things to pay attention to, look
out for, or try to log?
Thanks guys.
Richard Kettlewell
Aug 4, 2012, 4:25:52 AM8/4/12
to
Ohmster <ro...@dev.nul.invalid> writes:
> But this is the same version as the binary and src.rpm I had downloaded.
> Can anyone give me the instructions or URL to help installing tarballs
> with rpm please?
AFAICS there are no tarballs. If you need BitchX, your only choice
> But this is the same version as the binary and src.rpm I had downloaded.
> Can anyone give me the instructions or URL to help installing tarballs
> with rpm please?
seems to be building from SVN.
http://wiki.bitchx.org/svn_instructions
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Ohmster
Aug 4, 2012, 4:34:54 AM8/4/12
to
Ohmster <ro...@dev.nul.invalid> wrote in
news:XnsA0A51D60AD...@94.75.214.90:
> Ohmster <ro...@dev.nul.invalid> wrote in
> news:XnsA0A5195834094MyBigKitty@ 94.75.214.90:
>
>> Install tarball with RPM?
[..]
Thanks guys, really.
I did a little reading on how to build an rpm with rpmbuild to make
BitchX for my system with the most recent tarball, as Richard suggested,
but I would really like to stick to the package manager.
Here is where I got my tarball:
http://www.bitchx.com/download.php
After reading on how to do this, I need the source code, not the binary
tarball. I took:
Filename: ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
I put it in my user rpm build tree in SOURCES. Next, to build the binary,
same webpage:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Building_the_b
inary_package
"Create binary RPMS from the SPEC file"
Uh oh, I do not have nor know how to make a spec file, I think I found
the right one here:
http://downloads.openmobilefree.net/NanoNote/OpenWrt-SDK-xburst-for-
Linux-i686/openwrt-xburst.full_system/build_dir/target-mipsel_uClibc-
0.9.33/BitchX/BitchX.spec
And put it into my SPECS directory. Ready to go, enter SPECS and give it
a try, per same website.
$ rpm -ba BitchX.spec
Oh shoot, this didn't work, see output:
[paul@paulspcworks SPECS]$ rpmbuild -ba BitchX.spec
error: line 10: Illegal char '-' in: Version: 1.1-final
[paul@paulspcworks SPECS]$
Ahhh, shoot. Did I use the wrong spec file? Where does one get a spec
file for BitchX?
It is late, I am making mistakes or could be making them, I must quit.
But what am I doing wrong? This spec file is no good, is that it? Where
to get or how to make one, can someone help. Please?
Thanks!
news:XnsA0A51D60AD...@94.75.214.90:
> Ohmster <ro...@dev.nul.invalid> wrote in
> news:XnsA0A5195834094MyBigKitty@ 94.75.214.90:
>
>> Install tarball with RPM?
Thanks guys, really.
I did a little reading on how to build an rpm with rpmbuild to make
BitchX for my system with the most recent tarball, as Richard suggested,
but I would really like to stick to the package manager.
Here is where I got my tarball:
http://www.bitchx.com/download.php
After reading on how to do this, I need the source code, not the binary
tarball. I took:
Filename: ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
I put it in my user rpm build tree in SOURCES. Next, to build the binary,
same webpage:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Building_the_b
inary_package
"Create binary RPMS from the SPEC file"
Uh oh, I do not have nor know how to make a spec file, I think I found
the right one here:
http://downloads.openmobilefree.net/NanoNote/OpenWrt-SDK-xburst-for-
Linux-i686/openwrt-xburst.full_system/build_dir/target-mipsel_uClibc-
0.9.33/BitchX/BitchX.spec
And put it into my SPECS directory. Ready to go, enter SPECS and give it
a try, per same website.
$ rpm -ba BitchX.spec
Oh shoot, this didn't work, see output:
[paul@paulspcworks SPECS]$ rpmbuild -ba BitchX.spec
error: line 10: Illegal char '-' in: Version: 1.1-final
[paul@paulspcworks SPECS]$
Ahhh, shoot. Did I use the wrong spec file? Where does one get a spec
file for BitchX?
It is late, I am making mistakes or could be making them, I must quit.
But what am I doing wrong? This spec file is no good, is that it? Where
to get or how to make one, can someone help. Please?
Thanks!
Richard Kettlewell
Aug 4, 2012, 5:46:47 AM8/4/12
to
Ohmster <ro...@dev.nul.invalid> writes:
> After reading on how to do this, I need the source code, not the binary
> tarball. I took:
> Filename: ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
That tarball still has the same bug that stopped you in the first place.
> After reading on how to do this, I need the source code, not the binary
> tarball. I took:
> Filename: ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
You are simply not going to get anywhere with it.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Ohmster
Aug 6, 2012, 2:34:58 PM8/6/12
to
Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote in
news:87vcgzd...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk:
> Ohmster <ro...@dev.nul.invalid> writes:
>> After reading on how to do this, I need the source code, not the
binary
>> tarball. I took:
>> Filename: ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
>
> That tarball still has the same bug that stopped you in the first
place.
> You are simply not going to get anywhere with it.
http://www.bitchx.com/
Now there is another site:
http://www.bitchx.org/
Who claim to be "the real BitchX" and the .com is a rogue site or may
have bad files or some alleged issue. Quote:
"PLEASE NOTE THAT BITCHX.COM IS NOW OWNED BY A SNEAKY LITTLE CONSULTANT
TYPE WHO PURCHASED THE DOMAIN AND IS USING THE NAME AND THE APPEARANCE OF
A LEGITIMATE PAGE TO GARNER BUSINESS, AND AS SUCH IS NOT AN OFFICIAL
DISTRIBUTION SITE."
bitchx.org offers ONE download link that is a dead link, this one:
http://bitchx.sourceforge.net/ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
It gives me an error, but not a 404.
"An error has been encountered in accessing this page. "
And there is some sort of server generated output.
Does anybody know where to get a working BitchX for CentOS 6.3?
If tarball, then bitchx.spec to go with it
Thanks Richard.
J.O. Aho
Aug 6, 2012, 3:16:39 PM8/6/12
to
Ohmster wrote:
> Now there is another site:
> http://www.bitchx.org/
>
> Who claim to be "the real BitchX" and the .com is a rogue site or may
> have bad files or some alleged issue.
Yes, the bitchx.org is the real one.
> Now there is another site:
> http://www.bitchx.org/
>
> Who claim to be "the real BitchX" and the .com is a rogue site or may
> have bad files or some alleged issue.
> bitchx.org offers ONE download link that is a dead link, this one:
> http://bitchx.sourceforge.net/ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitchx/files/latest/download
--
//Aho
J G Miller
Aug 6, 2012, 3:45:39 PM8/6/12
to
On Monday, August 6th, 2012, at 21:16:39h +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
dated 2008-02-28.
Why are you completely ignoring what Richard Kettlewell has already explained?
On Saturday, August 4th, 2012, at 10:46:47h +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>
>> Filename: ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
>
> That tarball still has the same bug that stopped you in the first place.
> You are simply not going to get anywhere with it.
The statement "You are simply not going to get anywhere with it."
could not be written more explicitly.
If you do not believe Richard Kettlewell, will you believe what it
states most clearly on the Bitch X Wiki Page at
<http://wiki.bitchx.ORG/>
QUOTE
Stable - BitchX 1.1-final (deprecated, please compile from devel as
this is several years old and code rot has begun to set in)
UNQUOTE
The subversion repository information and how to download and compile
are located at
<http://wiki.bitchx.ORG/svn_instructions>
>
> Ohmster wrote:
>
>> bitchx.org offers ONE download link that is a dead link, this one:
>> http://bitchx.sourceforge.net/ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
>
> This link works:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitchx/files/latest/download
Which provides the source code archive file ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
> Ohmster wrote:
>
>> bitchx.org offers ONE download link that is a dead link, this one:
>> http://bitchx.sourceforge.net/ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
>
> This link works:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitchx/files/latest/download
dated 2008-02-28.
Why are you completely ignoring what Richard Kettlewell has already explained?
On Saturday, August 4th, 2012, at 10:46:47h +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>
>> Filename: ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
>
> That tarball still has the same bug that stopped you in the first place.
> You are simply not going to get anywhere with it.
could not be written more explicitly.
If you do not believe Richard Kettlewell, will you believe what it
states most clearly on the Bitch X Wiki Page at
<http://wiki.bitchx.ORG/>
QUOTE
Stable - BitchX 1.1-final (deprecated, please compile from devel as
this is several years old and code rot has begun to set in)
UNQUOTE
The subversion repository information and how to download and compile
are located at
<http://wiki.bitchx.ORG/svn_instructions>
Ohmster
Aug 8, 2012, 2:56:21 AM8/8/12
to
"J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net> wrote in news:a8ajgnF56sU1
@mid.individual.net:
> Ohmster wrote:
>
>> Now there is another site:
>> http://www.bitchx.org/
>>
>> Who claim to be "the real BitchX" and the .com is a rogue site or may
>> have bad files or some alleged issue.
>
> Yes, the bitchx.org is the real one.
Oh thank you aho.
>> bitchx.org offers ONE download link that is a dead link, this one:
>> http://bitchx.sourceforge.net/ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
>
> This link works:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitchx/files/latest/download
Got it. Way cool! Now, I need a spec file to use on rmpbuild to make a
package. I would really rather use the package manager, do you think that
it is worth the effort, aho?
@mid.individual.net:
> Ohmster wrote:
>
>> Now there is another site:
>> http://www.bitchx.org/
>>
>> Who claim to be "the real BitchX" and the .com is a rogue site or may
>> have bad files or some alleged issue.
>
> Yes, the bitchx.org is the real one.
>> bitchx.org offers ONE download link that is a dead link, this one:
>> http://bitchx.sourceforge.net/ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz
>
> This link works:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitchx/files/latest/download
package. I would really rather use the package manager, do you think that
it is worth the effort, aho?
Ohmster
Aug 8, 2012, 3:17:16 AM8/8/12
to
J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in news:jvp6t3$pit$2...@dont-email.me:
> On Monday, August 6th, 2012, at 21:16:39h +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
[..]
>> This link works:
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitchx/files/latest/download
>
> Which provides the source code archive file
> ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz dated 2008-02-28.
Hmm. Yes it does, doesn't it.
> Why are you completely ignoring what Richard Kettlewell has already
> explained?
...wishfull thinking perhaps?
[..]
>> That tarball still has the same bug that stopped you in the first
>> place. You are simply not going to get anywhere with it.
>
> The statement "You are simply not going to get anywhere with it."
> could not be written more explicitly.
You are doing a good job of letting the air out of my balloon, JC, but,
as what I consider to be a respected elder, I do not take your advice
lightly. Yes, I believe Richard.
> If you do not believe Richard Kettlewell, will you believe what it
> states most clearly on the Bitch X Wiki Page at
>
> <http://wiki.bitchx.ORG/>
>
> QUOTE
>
> Stable - BitchX 1.1-final (deprecated, please compile from devel as
> this is several years old and code rot has begun to set in)
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> The subversion repository information and how to download and compile
> are located at
>
> <http://wiki.bitchx.ORG/svn_instructions>
Mr. Miller, you have my attention. What do you suggest?
Bottom line, JG. Give it up? Compile from source tarball and install that
way? Build the package with rpmbuild, or find another IRC client? If so,
what do you recommend? I do like the CLI environment and the ANSI colors
of BitchX. Drab KDE software does not impress me much. (Shania Twain,
perhaps?) I think Epic is what we have now and that didn't do much to get
me excited.
The web has all but obliterated many of the Internet things that I grew
up with. Archie, FTP, WAIS, talk, IRC, what's next? Email? True, many of
these protocols are obsolete, but IRC will never die. It is not something
I use much or even like very much. But there are answers there of which I
cannot get anywhere else. BitchX with its glorious ANSI color, brute
force, powerful scripts, was an impressive beast. The KDE desktop pales
in comparison. The new KDE 4 is pretty cool, but not modern enough like
gnome. And that new desktop interface, I forget what it was called,
metro? Plasma? Yeah, that's it. Is impressive at first glance, but gets
old very, very quickly. What I can't stand about the KDE that ships with
Cent 6 is that the fonts are microscopic with a decent desktop
resolution. And one cannot just change the desktop and application fonts
very easily. Yes, there is a kde config on my system where I can jack up
the font size, but it is terribly inconsistent. Some fonts are huge, yet
help pages are doomed to microscopic fonts. I can barely read the toolbar
fonts on Chrome, yet the actual text on web pages is giant. But much of
it is not html text, not sure what it is, but zooming text or anything
seems to have no effect on it. Plasma impressed me for all of a few days,
until I found out that it is compiz with the guts torn out of it. I went
back to gnome and enabled desktop effects. Bam! There was the glorious
compiz cube, in all of it's totally configurable majesty. But I digress.
Suggestions Mr. Miller?
> On Monday, August 6th, 2012, at 21:16:39h +0200, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> This link works:
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitchx/files/latest/download
>
> Which provides the source code archive file
> ircii-pana-1.1-final.tar.gz dated 2008-02-28.
> Why are you completely ignoring what Richard Kettlewell has already
> explained?
[..]
>> That tarball still has the same bug that stopped you in the first
>> place. You are simply not going to get anywhere with it.
>
> The statement "You are simply not going to get anywhere with it."
> could not be written more explicitly.
as what I consider to be a respected elder, I do not take your advice
lightly. Yes, I believe Richard.
> If you do not believe Richard Kettlewell, will you believe what it
> states most clearly on the Bitch X Wiki Page at
>
> <http://wiki.bitchx.ORG/>
>
> QUOTE
>
> Stable - BitchX 1.1-final (deprecated, please compile from devel as
> this is several years old and code rot has begun to set in)
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> The subversion repository information and how to download and compile
> are located at
>
> <http://wiki.bitchx.ORG/svn_instructions>
Bottom line, JG. Give it up? Compile from source tarball and install that
way? Build the package with rpmbuild, or find another IRC client? If so,
what do you recommend? I do like the CLI environment and the ANSI colors
of BitchX. Drab KDE software does not impress me much. (Shania Twain,
perhaps?) I think Epic is what we have now and that didn't do much to get
me excited.
The web has all but obliterated many of the Internet things that I grew
up with. Archie, FTP, WAIS, talk, IRC, what's next? Email? True, many of
these protocols are obsolete, but IRC will never die. It is not something
I use much or even like very much. But there are answers there of which I
cannot get anywhere else. BitchX with its glorious ANSI color, brute
force, powerful scripts, was an impressive beast. The KDE desktop pales
in comparison. The new KDE 4 is pretty cool, but not modern enough like
gnome. And that new desktop interface, I forget what it was called,
metro? Plasma? Yeah, that's it. Is impressive at first glance, but gets
old very, very quickly. What I can't stand about the KDE that ships with
Cent 6 is that the fonts are microscopic with a decent desktop
resolution. And one cannot just change the desktop and application fonts
very easily. Yes, there is a kde config on my system where I can jack up
the font size, but it is terribly inconsistent. Some fonts are huge, yet
help pages are doomed to microscopic fonts. I can barely read the toolbar
fonts on Chrome, yet the actual text on web pages is giant. But much of
it is not html text, not sure what it is, but zooming text or anything
seems to have no effect on it. Plasma impressed me for all of a few days,
until I found out that it is compiz with the guts torn out of it. I went
back to gnome and enabled desktop effects. Bam! There was the glorious
compiz cube, in all of it's totally configurable majesty. But I digress.
Suggestions Mr. Miller?
Ohmster
Aug 8, 2012, 3:18:26 AM8/8/12
to
Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote in
news:87k3xf8...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk:
> AFAICS there are no tarballs. If you need BitchX, your only choice
> seems to be building from SVN.
>
> http://wiki.bitchx.org/svn_instructions
you were kind enough to provide instructions, thanks buddy.
Ohmster
Aug 8, 2012, 4:05:06 AM8/8/12
to
> The subversion repository information and how to download and compile
> are located at
>
> <http://wiki.bitchx.ORG/svn_instructions>
Hmmm. This svn stuff doesn't look to bad at all. Just followed the
> are located at
>
> <http://wiki.bitchx.ORG/svn_instructions>
instructions and ten minutes later, I am now running BitchX.
Thanks!
J G Miller
Aug 8, 2012, 7:47:15 AM8/8/12
to
On Wednesday, August 8th, 2012, at 08:05:06h +0000, Ohmster wrote:
> Hmmm. This svn stuff doesn't look to bad at all. Just followed the
> instructions and ten minutes later, I am now running BitchX.
So now if you really want to create an rpm out of it, either
> Hmmm. This svn stuff doesn't look to bad at all. Just followed the
> instructions and ten minutes later, I am now running BitchX.
write your own spec file, or grab a spec file from elsewhere
(maybe one is included in the old unworking source tar archive file)
and modify it if at all necessary, as well as I think creating a
tar archive from the downloaded SVN directory.
The key phrase here to success is
*Just followed the instructions*
Dan C
Aug 8, 2012, 10:46:12 AM8/8/12
to
friend...
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he inserted the suppository.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg
Robert Dinse
Aug 12, 2012, 3:06:45 PM8/12/12
to
I took the non-recommended approach and just updated everything to
the versions on RPMforge and RPMFusion and yea, I know if you get software
from different sources you pays your money and takes your chances and can
end up with dependency issues but so far I've only had one with a
particular perl lib.
Anyway, BitchX worked doing that without having to build anything
by hand.
0 new messages