From: ujlh@pool.info.sunyit.edu (James Henrickson) Subject: Re: utter frustration with making GCC 2.2.2d Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:20:32 GMT
In article <1843a2INNgqm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> mal11@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew A. Lewis) writes:
>
>
>
>i have followed the FAQ.GGC and release notes to no avail. Would some1
>please help me out a bit.
>
>I got the follow files from tsx-11:
>2.2.2d(db,lib,misc).tar.Z 3 files!!!!
>binutils.tar.Z
>0.97pl1inc.tar.Z
>install.2.x
>
>Due to linux's filename lenght limitations I renamed them as follows and put
>them in my root dir:
>
>2d(db,lib,misc).tar.Z
>097inc.tar.Z
>
Your first mistake was renaming the files. You DO NOT have to rename
the files, the names get truncated to 14 characters automagically.
Of course, you could always manually edit the entire install script
to reflect the new file names but trust me: it's more trouble
than it's worth.
Another thing worth pointing out: it doesn't matter what directory
your gcc files are in, as long as you run the installation script
from that same directory. I ran mine from /misc/tmp/GCC2.2.2d. :-)
>Then, as the docs say, I typed sh install.2.x -v 2d /foo/src/linux
In the programming world, we often use "foo" as an example, and this
is no exception. For most (but not all) Linux installations, it
is /usr/src/linux.
I'm not sure about the "2d" part, either. It's been a while so
I'll let someone else comment on that.
>
>It barfed when it looked for that dir, /foo/src/linux. So I made it
>and uncompressed and untared 097inc.tar.Z into it, making
>/foo/src/linux/include/linux....which it was looking for.
>Now it barfs looking for /foo/src/linux/include/asm.
>
If you have the kernel source installed properly (I suggest you make
sure by reading the docs that were in the same place where you found
the kernel source) AND properly applied the first patch AND give the
install script the correct path to the linux source AND didn't change
the names of the gcc files (just let the names get chopped), gcc
installation should be a piece of cake.
>i am totally confused. Are there any better docs????
The only time I had a problem with it was when I DIDN'T read the
docs first. Being accustomed to manual installations, I thought I
could just skip the docs. :-)
This is the EASIEST gcc installation we've had yet!
I think the installation instructions need to be improved, though,
based on the number of people that are having problems. The only
thing wrong with it (that I can see) is that it doesn't predict
places where people might go wrong, like renaming the files. I
know people aren't following instructions to the letter if they
do things that are NOT in the instructions, but we can keep that
from happening in the future. We can learn from this by keeping
the installation script the same and just adding a few more comments
to the instructions to keep people from making these same mistakes.
-- Jim H. * * James L. Henrickson * ujlh@sunyit.edu "Some day I might have a real .signature!"