I have the latest Haskell Platform (2012.2.0.0) 64bit OSX. But.. I have run into an issue with the 64bit compiler on Mac, which means that yesod devel crashes as soon as it starts.
I can't swap to the 32 bit version because of completely different issues with getting GTK+ to work.
I see the issue with GHC is fixed in 7.6.1 but the latest HP comes with 7.4. So, can I install GHC 7.6 on top of my working HP installation, or is that going to screw everything up?
Yes just install it in a separate directory and remember to change your path each time you wanna use it with the different versions, or change the name of the simulink in your bin like how mac ports does i.e. for instance in my bin i have ghc , ghc-7.4.1 and ghc-7.4.2 which are all different versions.
so in your case i would create two simulinks in /bin ghc-32 and ghc-64 for each of the two separate versions
Also it is important not to forget to CHANGE YOUR INSTALL PREFIX each build, usually denoted by --prefix when compiling GHC
Related
I have never used Linux OS. Want to know how we can start compiling Apache,Mysql and php in Linux and is it necessary to configure it.
I tried doing it by using cd/user/scr/httpd_2.0.09
Do we need to downloads the set up from google
Do yourself a favour and don't try to compile your own webserver etc. ;)
Aside from the fact that it's a lot of work to set up the tools for compiling, resolve dependencies, and debug possible errors, you will have to do the same procedure with every tiny update – instead of simply getting a new version via your package manager.
If you use a common distribution, install the packages required for the so-called LAMP stack, and configure them properly. That will be hard enough for starters.
If you're using Ubuntu, have a look here: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ApacheMySQLPHP
Actually installing binaries from repositories is less painful than compiling, but if you really want so, you may install Gentoo or other source-based distributive. I've simply described compilation of MySQL 5.5 in my blog.
To compile packages on Debian based systems you need to install build-essential and cmake package (and maybe some other *-dev packages, which appears to be missing during source configure).
For example to compile MySQL 5.5 it is enough to run:
cmake . #yep, with dot. Will prepare your source according to your system
make
make install #will install compiled binaries to system
Redhat 5 has the required 2.6.18 kernel but not the latest glibc, g++ and certainly no clang. The binary distribution doesn't run, complaining about glibc version.
Has anyone made an attempt to back port to old Linux? I could imagine cobbling together a frankensystem with an old kernel but new compilers and try to compile against old glibc or statically compile in some of new glibc but it seems like a fraught course.
Just wondering if anyone has tried and can offer guidance?
I'm thinking there must be a distro setup to do such builds. Anaconda, for example, includes lots of new technologies but works fine on Redhat 5. I wonder how they build it?
Update: Once you get some newer compilers working on RHEL5 it's still not possible to build Rust because it depends on a working binary of itself to bootstrap. See: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/9545#issuecomment-54865031
Anaconda packages are built against CentOS 5 (which is equivalent to Redhat 5). The important thing is to compile against an old enough glibc, as it is strictly forward compatible (as you saw). The version of glibc is typically tied to the version of the distro, so your best bet is to make a VM with CentOS 5 and build on that.
The version of the compiler used is not as important, and in fact in some cases it is necessary to use a newer compiler than the old one that comes with the system to get things to work. I have gcc 4.8 built for CentOS 5 which you can get with conda (conda install -c asmeurer gcc).
I hit this very issue this weekend, because Skylight supports Linux 2.6.18, including CentOS 5.10, and we use Rust in our agent.
Alex Crichton of the Rust core team was kind enough to get this working again by using CentOS 5.10 boxes for the build, which uses glibc 2.5 and Linux 2.6.18.
I initially installed haskell platform ( 2013 version; 7.6.3 ghc ) on my mac. Everything was working great. Just now saw the haskell platform website again and found new version was released ( Haskell Platform 2014.2.0.0 for Mac OS X, 64bit ). I installed it, and un-installed the older version using uninstall-hs.
Now when i type "cabal" or "cabal update" on my terminal, it hangs. Actually when i look into Activity Monitor, i can see that it is invoking some "sh script & possibly some find command" infinitely. I initially guess may be it is building some indexes. but it has been running for an hr or so.
Please advice. I cannot install any other package using cabal.
As suggested by Zeta, you can remove (or to be safe, backup) ~/.cabal and ~/.ghc first. I also have a Mac OS X 10.9.4 and recently upgraded. I ran the uninstall-hs script, and installed the new Haskell Platform 2014. Even without backing up those directories though, I still had an event free uninstall/update.
Also, ensure to double check your paths in your ~/.bash_profile, as they will need to be updated.
Here is an example of mine, to hopefully give you some clues as what may need to be done.
# Haskell / Cabal
export PATH="$HOME/Library/Haskell/bin:$PATH"
export PATH="$HOME/Library/Haskell/ghc-7.8.3-x86_64/lib/cabal-install-1.20.0.3/bin:$PATH"
export PATH="$HOME/.emacs.d/hslint:$PATH"
export PATH="$HOME/Library/Haskell/ghc-7.8.3-x86_64/lib/cgrep-6.4.4/bin:$PATH"
As for cabal try $ which cabal and cabal -V to verify you are running the latest 1.20 cabal version and that it's set in your $PATH.
A C program compiled here runs fine on our Ubuntu servers. But when a somebody else tries to run it on their particular Linux server they get the following errors:
./myprog-install: /lib/tls/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by ./myprog-install)
./myprog-install: /lib/tls/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.7' not found (required by ./myprog-install)
Do I need to upgrade our glibc libraries and recompile? Or are they missing something on their server?
If I run apt-cache show libc6 my Ubuntu tells me the version is:
Package: libc6
Priority: required
Section: libs
Installed-Size: 9368
Maintainer: Ubuntu Core developers <ubuntu-devel-discuss#lists.ubuntu.com>
Original-Maintainer: GNU Libc Maintainers <debian-glibc#lists.debian.org>
Architecture: i386
Source: eglibc
Version: 2.11.1-0ubuntu7.10
If I look at http://packages.ubuntu.com/hardy/libc6 the current version appears to be 2.7-10ubuntu8.1.
I'm confused by the numbers. On the one hand 2.11-1-0 is a higher number than 2.7-11. On the other hand 7.10 is a lower number than 8.1.
Is it just a matter of me upgrading the C library package and recompiling do you think? Or is the other person's server missing some needed library there for compatibility?
You have built on glibc-2.11 system. You are trying to run on a system with glibc-2.3 or older. That's not going to work.
Is it just a matter of me upgrading the C library package
No: upgrading your glibc will only make things worse.
You may want to try solutions listed here.
Is this something we can reasonably request the other party to upgrade their system to support, rather than downgrade our compiler?
Usually the client will strongly resist requests to upgrade their system: it's working fine for them as is, and any upgrade can break other existing applications.
If you are planning to distribute binaries on Linux (as opposed to building them on the target system), then you need to learn how to make binaries that will run everywhere, or you need to state your requirements (minimum kernel and libc versions, etc.) and turn clients who can't meet these requirements away.
Update:
Why did they get two errors. Why didn't they just get one for GLIBC_2.11.1 which is apparently what I built with?
Symbol versioning doesn't work that way.
When a new symbol is introduced, it is marked with the current libc version, e.g. readdir64##GLIBC_2.2, posix_spawn##GLIBC_2.15, etc.
When you link a program that uses both of the above symbols, and try to run it on e.g. glibc-2.1 system, you would get two errors.
But if you link a program that doesn't use any of the above symbols, e.g.
int main() { return 0; }
then your program will just run without any errors.
Update 2:
they don't have to add both GLIBC_2.4 and GLIBC2.7 to their Linux system, do they?
No, they don't. The GLIBC_2.11 will have all the previous symbols in it. In fact, they couldn't install both glibc-2.4 and 2.7 even if they wanted to: it is quite difficult to have multiple versions installed at the same time, and impossible to have multiple versions installed in default location.
You've built it against a version of glibc that is too new. Build it against an older version of glibc, preferably the one that they are using.
you need to build on a system that uses same versions of libraries as you do. This is where docker and VM's are very convenient. There is probably a pre-made docker image for whatever version the customer has.
Can I install an older version of gcc/g++ (4.1.3) on the latest Ubuntu (which comes with 4.4.3) and use it to compile a .so which should run on CentOS? The binary compiled with the Ubuntu version of gcc fails to load on CentOS because of missing imports (GLIB_2_11, ...). I need C++ (including exceptions), so I can't just statically link against glibc, which I already tried.
Can I install the older gcc without removing the newer one? How do I go about the libs required by the older gcc?
I'm currently developing code in CentOS, but it's such a pain to use. I really want to move to an Ubuntu desktop.
g++-4.1 is available for Ubuntu; just run apt-get install g++-4.1 then run g++-4.1 instead of g++. However, simply using an older compiler may not fix all of your library issues.
Like Joachim Sauer said, your best bet is to do your development on Ubuntu then do the final compilation on CentOS.
Even though you're using C++, static linking should still be an option. (However, you're much better off compiling on CentOS and using dynamic linking.)
Edit: A virtual machine is the most straightforward way to build on CentOS, but if you want to avoid the memory and CPU overhead of running a VM and don't care about differences between Ubuntu's and CentOS's kernel, then you can create a subdirectory containing a CentOS or Fedora filesystem and chroot do that to do your builds. This blog posting has details.