bug-gnu-utils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

RE: Question (bug ?) - how to build gawk for Linux on PowerPC ? W hat ar


From: Povolotsky, Alexander
Subject: RE: Question (bug ?) - how to build gawk for Linux on PowerPC ? W hat are pre-requisites to be prior installed ?
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:08:44 -0400

There is no Linux vendor for me - I am building from free "vanilla" Linux
2.6.8-rc4 distribution
for Power PC architecture - diskless board with mounted root file system.
My original cross-build environment is "cygwin". Now I have bult "native
compiler but not able to use 
due to "mess" I have with "rogue" commands (for which I seems to do not have
"true" working replacements).

-----Original Message-----
From: Aharon Robbins [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 5:52 AM
To: address@hidden; address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden
Subject: Re: Question (bug ?) - how to build gawk for Linux on PowerPC ?
What are pre-requisites to be prior installed ?


I think Bob has identified it.  Try to figure out why the native
build isn't working. After all, the linux vendor had to be able
to do it.

I myself don't have a Linux/PPC system, nor access to one, so
I can't help you out otherwise.  Sorry.

Arnold

> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:23:14 -0600
> To: "Povolotsky, Alexander" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "'address@hidden'" <address@hidden>,
>         "'address@hidden'"
<address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Question (bug ?) - how to build gawk for Linux on PowerPC ?
What are pre-requisites to be prior installed ?
>
> Povolotsky, Alexander wrote:
> > See below the capture of failure to buid gawk "natively" (should I
> > crosscompile instead ?)
> > rm: invalid option -- f
> > usage: rm [-d] [-q len] [conf]rm: invalid option -- f
>
> Check for a rogue 'rm' command in your path.
>
>   type rm
>
> Find it and rename it to something that does not collide with the 'rm'
> command.
>
> > sed: invalid option -- n
> > usage: sed [-d] [-q len] [conf]rm: invalid option -- f
>
> Same thing for 'sed'.
>
> Now is it a coincidence that both 'rm' and 'sed' in your listing have
> exactly the same usage message?
>
> Bob




reply via email to

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