On Mon, 5 May 2003, Larson, Timothy E. wrote:

> OK, I unpacked the text set from the command line.  It took a lot
> less time than the installer app, too.  My first goal is to get dt
> compiled.
>
> ===> dt-1.1.7nb2 is not available for NetBSD-1.6.m68k

Please update Makefile in that directory to 1.19. If it's not
convenient to run "cvs update", just change the line that says
ONLY_FOR_PLATFORM to

ONLY_FOR_PLATFORM=      NetBSD-*-m68k

That was the mistake I told you about earlier.

> Isn't that the point of building from source?  Oh well.  Let's try aterm instead.

You should know that running "X" on any Mac, today, is for masochists
only. I do it just to make sure things still work, but it's a labour
of love, with little practical value. I mostly do as much as possible
on the i386 file server -- making sure they build on i386 before even
attempting it on the Mac, and sometimes even unpacking the archive on
the server. Given that reality, "dt" is pretty popular, and it's a
shame it got broken.

> ===> Installing for libtool-base-1.4.20010614nb14
>
> I swear I've seen this scroll by at least 4 times now.  Is that
> normal?  Wish I had a better grasp of the whole package system.
> It's been compiling for around 4 hours, I'd guess.  It just finished
> that and is back to building jpeg-6b now.  (wait)  Another 3 hours,
> and that's done too.  On to png-1.2.5nb2!  (wait)  Yay, finally
> completed after about 11 hours total.  Unfortunately it failed, so I
> have no aterm.  Wish I'd thought to capture a log so I knew what
> happened.

You don't really need to capture the log of all the dependencies. Just
run "make" again, then "cd" to the package that failed, and run "make
> mklog 2>&1". In either case, the package system will pick up where
it left off. The log you get will be more concise and useful than any
capture of the whole process.

[BTW, I've wrapped your lines so other people can read this. You'll
bet a better response from the lists if you do the same from the outset.]

> Now I knew this was going to be a slow process on this tiny box, but
> I assumed that the packages would at least compile.  Is this 0-for-2
> experience typical?  It's a bit disheartening.

There are (nearly) complete sets of 1.6.1/m68k packages on
ftp.netbsd.org. I understand they were built on an Amiga/68060/100
processor, which was a contemporary and peer to the Pentium 90. The
fastest Mac has a 68040/66, which is something like 10 times slower,
and at least a 100 times slower than the cheapest computer you could
by new, today -- so don't expect much. If you're having fun, by all
means carry on, but it would make sense to install as many
dependencies as possible from binary packages. The way the package
system sets up the build for the dependencies can consume all
available resources before you've begun to actually build anything,
but if the dependencies are already in place, it goes a lot quicker.


Frederick