freetype-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Solution to problems with dgettext@@SUNW_0.7 and freetype 1.3.1 ?


From: Tom Kacvinsky
Subject: Re: Solution to problems with dgettext@@SUNW_0.7 and freetype 1.3.1 ?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:06:50 -0500 (EST)

This is *exactly* the problem.  I just recompiled gcc 2.95.2 on my Solaris 2.7
box so that it uses GNU ld (I used binutils 2.10) and I ran into the linker
problems that people have been reporting.

But then again, the gcc 2.95.2 release notes state that GNU ld has problems with
Solaris, so it is best to use the "stock" ld that comes with the OS install.  I
believe that /usr/ccs/bin/ld is part of the OS install (no need to install the
SUNWspro package to get this ld).  Anyway, to those people who have problems
compiling (with gcc) freetype 1.3.1 on Solaris 2.7, recompile gcc to use the
stock ld.

Regards,

Tom

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Tom Kacvinsky wrote:

> I am beginning to suspect that the people who have been having problems
> with dgettext@@SUNW_0.7 when compiling freetype 1.3.1 on Solaris 2.7
> are using GNU's ld instead of /usr/ccs/bin/ld (as the linker for gcc).
> 
> I just compiled freetype 1.3.1 on a Solaris 2.7 box using gcc 2.95.2
> w/o a hitch, but gcc was compiled to use Sun's linker instead of GNU's
> linker.   I did not have to specify --disable-nls as an option for
> configure.
> 
> But then again, when I ran configure, I also got this message:
> 
>     found xgettext program is not GNU xgettext; ignore it
> 
> and when I installed, I got this message:
> 
>     xgettext not available: freetype.pot not updated
> 
> So I thought that installing GNU xgettext might trigger the problem (why I 
> thought
> that, I don't know. :)  Anyway, it didn't.
> 
> So, in conclusion, the only difference I can think of between the people who 
> are
> having problems and me is that I am using Sun's ld, and those who are having 
> problems
> are using GNU's ld.
> 
> Let me know if this sounds completely absurd.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]