Howdy, I'm trying to get started with Wine development, and I figured the best way would be to CVS the code and install it.
I CVSed the code, configured, did a 'make depend', 'make', and a 'make install'.
When I try to run wine, I get a message that libntdll.so wasn't found. So I found it in /usr/lib/libntdll.so. is there something in the initial setup config that didn't work correctly?
FWIW, I can rpm the wine-cvs-unstripped rpm just fine, and it works well. (The install process and the program.)
Any ideas how to get this working from my cvs directory?
Thanks, ==================================================== Oliver Sampson olsam@quickaudio.com http://www.oliversampson.com
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 06:06:36PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
Howdy, I'm trying to get started with Wine development, and I figured the best way would be to CVS the code and install it.
I CVSed the code, configured, did a 'make depend', 'make', and a 'make install'.
When I try to run wine, I get a message that libntdll.so wasn't found. So I found it in /usr/lib/libntdll.so. is there something in the initial setup config that didn't work correctly?
Make sure /etc/ld.so.conf contains the path. See www.winehq.com/Trouble/ for details.
FWIW, I can rpm the wine-cvs-unstripped rpm just fine, and it works well. (The install process and the program.)
Any ideas how to get this working from my cvs directory?
Simply *don't* do "make install", but rather create symlinks in global dirs or add to PATH.
Ask whenever you need help with development !
Good luck !
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Andreas Mohr wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 06:06:36PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
[...]
Any ideas how to get this working from my cvs directory?
Simply *don't* do "make install", but rather create symlinks in global dirs or add to PATH.
Or add to LD_LIBRARY_PATH rather than creating global symlinks. I have a script that I source which sets PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH properly for the wine CVS tree that I pass in parameter. At the core it does:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH="$WINE_ROOT:$WINE_ROOT/dlls" PATH="$WINE_ROOT:$WINE_ROOT/server:$WINE_ROOT/tools:$PATH"
export WINE_ROOT LD_LIBRARY_PATH PATH
(note: you could also add debugger and tools to the PATH)
-- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- from some indian guy
Many thanks for the ideas. I'll get right on them.
Oliver
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:50:16 -0800 (PST), Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Andreas Mohr wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 06:06:36PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
[...]
Any ideas how to get this working from my cvs directory?
Simply *don't* do "make install", but rather create symlinks in global dirs or add to PATH.
Or add to LD_LIBRARY_PATH rather than creating global symlinks. I have a script that I source which sets PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH properly for the wine CVS tree that I pass in parameter. At the core it does:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH="$WINE_ROOT:$WINE_ROOT/dlls" PATH="$WINE_ROOT:$WINE_ROOT/server:$WINE_ROOT/tools:$PATH"
export WINE_ROOT LD_LIBRARY_PATH PATH
(note: you could also add debugger and tools to the PATH)
==================================================== Oliver Sampson olsam@quickaudio.com http://www.oliversampson.com
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 18:31:03 +0100, Andreas Mohr andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 06:06:36PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
Howdy, I'm trying to get started with Wine development, and I figured the best way would be to CVS the code and install it.
I CVSed the code, configured, did a 'make depend', 'make', and a 'make install'.
When I try to run wine, I get a message that libntdll.so wasn't found. So I found it in /usr/lib/libntdll.so. is there something in the initial setup config that didn't work correctly?
Make sure /etc/ld.so.conf contains the path. See www.winehq.com/Trouble/ for details.
I went to the modifyable FAQ and saw an entry for libntdll.so, but I didn't see any assistance to the problem. Is this a hint for me to add an answer for when I get this resolved?
I checked out my /etc/ld.so.conf and /usr/lib is listed in there. libntdll.so is in my /usr/lib, but when ever I run wine from what I've made, I get the message that libntdll.so can't be found:
wine: error while loading shared libraries: libntdll.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
I tried setting the LD_LIBRARY_PATH as suggested in the other post, but that didn't seem to help either.
Thanks, Oliver
FWIW, I can rpm the wine-cvs-unstripped rpm just fine, and it works well. (The install process and the program.)
Any ideas how to get this working from my cvs directory?
Simply *don't* do "make install", but rather create symlinks in global dirs or add to PATH.
Ask whenever you need help with development !
Good luck !
==================================================== Oliver Sampson olsam@quickaudio.com http://www.oliversampson.com
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:20:53PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 18:31:03 +0100, Andreas Mohr andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 06:06:36PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
When I try to run wine, I get a message that libntdll.so wasn't found. So I found it in /usr/lib/libntdll.so. is there something in the initial setup config that didn't work correctly?
Make sure /etc/ld.so.conf contains the path. See www.winehq.com/Trouble/ for details.
I went to the modifyable FAQ and saw an entry for libntdll.so, but I didn't see any assistance to the problem. Is this a hint for me to add an answer for when I get this resolved?
Err, yes ;-)
I checked out my /etc/ld.so.conf and /usr/lib is listed in there. libntdll.so is in my /usr/lib, but when ever I run wine from what I've made, I get the message that libntdll.so can't be found:
wine: error while loading shared libraries: libntdll.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Hmm, and you did run ldconfig ?
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:40:17 +0100, Andreas Mohr andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:20:53PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 18:31:03 +0100, Andreas Mohr andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 06:06:36PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
When I try to run wine, I get a message that libntdll.so wasn't found. So I found it in /usr/lib/libntdll.so. is there something in the initial setup config that didn't work correctly?
Make sure /etc/ld.so.conf contains the path. See www.winehq.com/Trouble/ for details.
I went to the modifyable FAQ and saw an entry for libntdll.so, but I didn't see any assistance to the problem. Is this a hint for me to add an answer for when I get this resolved?
Err, yes ;-)
I thought so. No problem--I'll take care of it when I solve this. However.....
I checked out my /etc/ld.so.conf and /usr/lib is listed in there. libntdll.so is in my /usr/lib, but when ever I run wine from what I've made, I get the message that libntdll.so can't be found:
wine: error while loading shared libraries: libntdll.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Hmm, and you did run ldconfig ?
Umm. no. Not explicitly, but I noticed that it's the last thing called during the 'make install'. When I run it (as root, of course) it returns no errors, leading me to believe all is okay.
However, I'm still getting the libntdll error.
Let's assume that I know nothing and I've read the wine web page enough to download a cvs image.
After I update my directory, it's a matter of autoconf ./configure make depend make make install.
Is there anything missing in that sequence of steps? Afterwards, I should be able to type 'wine ...' and be on my way, right?
Also interesting, but every so slightly possibly could be related is that even though I'm using the Dec 3 cvs update, (for the rpm that I can get to run) when I type wine --version, it gives me 200011108, which was the original wine package I had installed. Even though I removed it (rpm -e) something from it appears to be remaining.
==================================================== Oliver Sampson olsam@quickaudio.com http://www.oliversampson.com
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 04:33:53PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:40:17 +0100, Andreas Mohr andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:20:53PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
I checked out my /etc/ld.so.conf and /usr/lib is listed in there. libntdll.so is in my /usr/lib, but when ever I run wine from what I've made, I get the message that libntdll.so can't be found:
wine: error while loading shared libraries: libntdll.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Hmm, and you did run ldconfig ?
Umm. no. Not explicitly, but I noticed that it's the last thing called during the 'make install'. When I run it (as root, of course) it returns no errors, leading me to believe all is okay.
However, I'm still getting the libntdll error.
Let's assume that I know nothing and I've read the wine web page enough to download a cvs image.
After I update my directory, it's a matter of autoconf ./configure make depend make make install.
NOT autoconf. That shouldn't be needed.
Is there anything missing in that sequence of steps? Afterwards, I should be able to type 'wine ...' and be on my way, right?
yep.
Also interesting, but every so slightly possibly could be related is that even though I'm using the Dec 3 cvs update, (for the rpm that I can get to run) when I type wine --version, it gives me 200011108, which was the original wine package I had installed. Even though I removed it (rpm -e) something from it appears to be remaining.
Uh oh. That's exactly what I suspected. Try www.winehq.com/Trouble/, "total cleanup"
On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:33:53 +0100, you wrote:
I checked out my /etc/ld.so.conf and /usr/lib is listed in there. libntdll.so is in my /usr/lib, but when ever I run wine from what I've made, I get the message that libntdll.so can't be found:
wine: error while loading shared libraries: libntdll.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Hmm, and you did run ldconfig ?
Umm. no. Not explicitly, but I noticed that it's the last thing called during the 'make install'. When I run it (as root, of course) it returns no errors, leading me to believe all is okay.
However, I'm still getting the libntdll error.
Let's assume that I know nothing and I've read the wine web page enough to download a cvs image.
After I update my directory, it's a matter of autoconf ./configure make depend make make install.
Is there anything missing in that sequence of steps? Afterwards, I should be able to type 'wine ...' and be on my way, right?
You are doing a standard wine install. This installs the wine executables in /usr/local/bin and the libs in /usr/local/lib (do a ./configure --help to see how those can be changed).
That means that you must have:
- either /usr/local/lib configured in /etc/ld.so.conf or it is specified in the LD_LIBRARY_PATH - /usr/local/bin must be part of the PATH. - wine executables in /usr/bin and /usr/lib are part of another wine install, probably the one from the rpm. It is best to remove them.
Also interesting, but every so slightly possibly could be related is that even though I'm using the Dec 3 cvs update, (for the rpm that I can get to run) when I type wine --version, it gives me 200011108, which was the original wine package I had installed. Even though I removed it (rpm -e) something from it appears to be remaining.
That is normal. --version is not updated between the offcial snapshots.
Rein.
So, it's solved. How did I solve it? Uh, I read the directions.
Rather than do a ./configure....make install as I listed below, I did a ./tools/wineinstall.
Worked fine. WTF?
I guess I'll have a bit of a closer look at the wineinstall script, and see what the difference was.
Anyhow, I'm up and running with a reasonably fresh copy of wine.
So, what's the normal update process?
cvs update; make depend; make; make install?
or
wineinstall?
<ot> Why is the default behavior for the list to have replies go only to the sender and not to the list? </ot>
Thanks, Oliver
On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:59:19 +0100, Rein Klazes rklazes@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:33:53 +0100, you wrote:
I checked out my /etc/ld.so.conf and /usr/lib is listed in there. libntdll.so is in my /usr/lib, but when ever I run wine from what I've made, I get the message that libntdll.so can't be found:
wine: error while loading shared libraries: libntdll.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Hmm, and you did run ldconfig ?
Umm. no. Not explicitly, but I noticed that it's the last thing called during the 'make install'. When I run it (as root, of course) it returns no errors, leading me to believe all is okay.
However, I'm still getting the libntdll error.
Let's assume that I know nothing and I've read the wine web page enough to download a cvs image.
After I update my directory, it's a matter of autoconf ./configure make depend make make install.
Is there anything missing in that sequence of steps? Afterwards, I should be able to type 'wine ...' and be on my way, right?
You are doing a standard wine install. This installs the wine executables in /usr/local/bin and the libs in /usr/local/lib (do a ./configure --help to see how those can be changed).
That means that you must have:
- either /usr/local/lib configured in /etc/ld.so.conf or it is
specified in the LD_LIBRARY_PATH
- /usr/local/bin must be part of the PATH.
- wine executables in /usr/bin and /usr/lib are part of another wine
install, probably the one from the rpm. It is best to remove them.
Also interesting, but every so slightly possibly could be related is that even though I'm using the Dec 3 cvs update, (for the rpm that I can get to run) when I type wine --version, it gives me 200011108, which was the original wine package I had installed. Even though I removed it (rpm -e) something from it appears to be remaining.
That is normal. --version is not updated between the offcial snapshots.
Rein.
==================================================== Oliver Sampson olsam@quickaudio.com http://www.oliversampson.com
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:15:46PM +0100, Oliver Sampson wrote:
So, it's solved. How did I solve it? Uh, I read the directions.
Rather than do a ./configure....make install as I listed below, I did a ./tools/wineinstall.
Worked fine. WTF?
I guess I'll have a bit of a closer look at the wineinstall script, and see what the difference was.
Hmm, strange.
So, what's the normal update process?
cvs update; make depend; make; make install?
Well, yeah.
But cvs update make depend all is faster ;) (provided you do have your wine setup prepared appropriately)
<ot> Why is the default behavior for the list to have replies go only to the sender and not to the list? </ot>
Hmm, dunno. I'm not the #1 expert here.
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:34:53 +0100, Andreas Mohr andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de wrote:
So, what's the normal update process?
cvs update; make depend; make; make install?
Well, yeah.
But cvs update make depend all is faster ;) (provided you do have your wine setup prepared appropriately)
And do I dare ask what that might be?
Thanks, ==================================================== Oliver Sampson olsam@quickaudio.com http://www.oliversampson.com
On 2001.12.09 17:15 Oliver Sampson wrote: [SNIP]
<ot> Why is the default behavior for the list to have replies go only to the sender and not to the list? </ot>
Because that would be ridiculous. The only way to really accomplish that is to add a Reply-To which means that it then becomes impossible to easily reply directly to the author.
If you don't add it then all you need to do is hit "Reply All" which will cause it to send it To: the original author, and Cc: it to the list.
So assuming you have your mail filters setup such that mail which went through the list goes into the wine-devel mailbox and other mail is processed as usual then you will get two copies: one directly to you in your inbox and one in the list. Personally I prefer this because I can then reply directly to any pertinent things before I go reading the rest of the list.
Like this:
MAILDIR=$HOME/mail/incoming
:0:wine/announce.lock * ^Sender:.*wine-announce-admin@winehq.com wine/announce
:0:wine/cvs.lock * ^Sender:.*wine-cvs-admin@winehq.com wine/cvs
:0:wine/devel.lock * ^Sender:.*wine-devel-admin@winehq.com wine/devel
:0:wine/patches.lock * ^Sender:.*wine-patches-admin@winehq.com wine/patches
That is part of my .procmailrc file which will filter on the sender line (mail that has gone through the list servers). Note that I do not filter on To or CC line as is stated on the website because then anyone who sent mail directly to me but also cced it to the list, well, it goes into the list, which defeats the whole benefit of getting two copies of the mail.
Hmm, come to think of it, maybe someone should put those lines up on the WineHQ website as an alternative method, or in place of the current method. IIRC the website is in CVS, would someone want me to send a patch for this?
-Dave
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, David Elliott wrote: [...]
Like this:
MAILDIR=$HOME/mail/incoming
:0:wine/announce.lock
- ^Sender:.*wine-announce-admin@winehq.com
wine/announce
I do:
:0: * ^TOwine-announce@winehq.com * ^FROM_DAEMON $HOME/mail/wine-announce
The FROM_DAEMON makes sure that mail sent directly to me is not redirected. The lock may be a good idea though. And I have a special case for patches@winehq.com:
:0: * ^TOpatches@winehq.com * ^FROM_DAEMON $HOME/mail/wine-patches
-- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- from some indian guy
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:30:04 -0500, David Elliott dfe@tgwbd.org wrote:
On 2001.12.09 17:15 Oliver Sampson wrote: [SNIP]
<ot> Why is the default behavior for the list to have replies go only to the sender and not to the list? </ot>
Because that would be ridiculous. The only way to really accomplish that is to add a Reply-To which means that it then becomes impossible to easily reply directly to the author.
Well, it's not rediculous. And it's not rediculous when you consider that *every other* list (save one) to which I'm subscribed has the list as the default reply-to. The assumption is that if it's important enough to be asked in public, then the answer should be public also. Why should the assumed answer be private? I'm in a habit of replying to mail, not replying-all to mail, and when I reply to mail on this list, I find that I end up sending it twice. (My assumption is that I'm a typical listserv subscriber.) Rarely, do I want to send an email off-list. Do you (and the majority of the members here) send so many off-list emails in response to on-list emails that having the default reply-to for the list, not be the list itself?
Hey, it was just a question.
If you don't add it then all you need to do is hit "Reply All" which will cause it to send it To: the original author, and Cc: it to the list.
So assuming you have your mail filters setup such that mail which went through the list goes into the wine-devel mailbox and other mail is processed as usual then you will get two copies: one directly to you in your inbox and one in the list. Personally I prefer this because I can then reply directly to any pertinent things before I go reading the rest of the list.
Like this:
MAILDIR=$HOME/mail/incoming
:0:wine/announce.lock
- ^Sender:.*wine-announce-admin@winehq.com
wine/announce
:0:wine/cvs.lock
- ^Sender:.*wine-cvs-admin@winehq.com
wine/cvs
:0:wine/devel.lock
- ^Sender:.*wine-devel-admin@winehq.com
wine/devel
:0:wine/patches.lock
- ^Sender:.*wine-patches-admin@winehq.com
wine/patches
That is part of my .procmailrc file which will filter on the sender line (mail that has gone through the list servers). Note that I do not filter on To or CC line as is stated on the website because then anyone who sent mail directly to me but also cced it to the list, well, it goes into the list, which defeats the whole benefit of getting two copies of the mail.
Hmm, come to think of it, maybe someone should put those lines up on the WineHQ website as an alternative method, or in place of the current method. IIRC the website is in CVS, would someone want me to send a patch for this?
-Dave
I find filtering on the List-Id: field to be the most accurate and unambiguous.
List-Id: Wine Developer's List <wine-devel.winehq.com>
Oliver
==================================================== Oliver Sampson olsam@quickaudio.com http://www.oliversampson.com
On 2001.12.10 16:57 Oliver Sampson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:30:04 -0500, David Elliott dfe@tgwbd.org wrote:
On 2001.12.09 17:15 Oliver Sampson wrote: [SNIP]
<ot> Why is the default behavior for the list to have replies go only to the sender and not to the list? </ot>
Because that would be ridiculous. The only way to really accomplish
that
is to add a Reply-To which means that it then becomes impossible to
easily
reply directly to the author.
Well, it's not rediculous. And it's not rediculous when you consider that *every other* list (save one) to which I'm subscribed has the list as the default reply-to. The assumption is that if it's important enough to be asked in public, then the answer should be public also. Why should the assumed answer be private? I'm in a habit of replying to mail, not replying-all to mail, and when I reply to mail on this list, I find that I end up sending it twice. (My assumption is that I'm a typical listserv subscriber.) Rarely, do I want to send an email off-list. Do you (and the majority of the members here) send so many off-list emails in response to on-list emails that having the default reply-to for the list, not be the list itself?
Hey, it was just a question.
Nah, more like a religious issue actually. I really despise the Reply-To munging on some lists and much prefer the way that it is done on this list (which I believe is also how the Linux Kernel list works, last time I was subscribed to it). The way I see it the reply-to header causes the mail client to do silly things and not including it allows more flexibility in the way messages are replied to. But believe me, when I first joined the list I was in your shoes until I realized that Reply-All is really the way to go.
If you think about it, it makes sense: Reply - i.e. Reply to the sender Reply All - i.e. Reply to everyone (which is usually the sender and the list).
Furthermore, if you include a reply-to header then: Reply - Replies to the list, not the sender Reply All - Replies to the list twice, once because it replaces the senders address with the reply to, and another time because the list was a receipient of the message. It also breaks anyone who actually uses a reply-to header for a legitimate reason.
This argument has been discussed before way back when on this list (or was it LKML?, I think it was this one). Almost the exact arguments I am giving above were presented. Believe me, I used to think like you did until I heard this argument, so maybe that'll set it in for ya.
[BIG SNIP]
I find filtering on the List-Id: field to be the most accurate and unambiguous.
List-Id: Wine Developer's List <wine-devel.winehq.com>
Hmm, Dunno how in the hell I missed that... maybe at one point that wasn't there so the only unique thing I could come up with was Sender:.
Anyway, this is the end of this thread by far, please send any responses directly using the Reply button as opposed to the Reply All button. :-P
-Dave
-
Andreas Mohr -
David Elliott -
Francois Gouget -
Oliver Sampson -
Rein Klazes