[ntp:hackers] Build quirks: Error 96, gnome-config

Dave Hart hart at ntp.org
Sun Mar 6 15:01:14 UTC 2011


On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 09:59 UTC, Hal Murray <hmurray at megapathdsl.net> wrote:
> This is from NetBSD:
>
> make  check-local
> ./ntpd --configfile ../../ntpd/complete.conf --saveconfigquit compsave.conf
> *** Error code 96
>
> How do I figure out what that's trying to tell me?  Is there a better error
> messsage someplace?  Where?  ...

My guess would be make got exit status 96 from ntpd --saveconfigquit.
Try this to verify:

A.whatever/ntpd/ntpd -c ntpd/complete.conf --saveconfigquit saved.conf
|| echo ntpd exit status $?

> That config file says:
>  logfile "/var/log/ntp.log"
> But that's not writeable.  (I don't normally run things like flock-build as
> root.)

Irrelevant, --saveconfigquit doesn't actually use any settings from
the configuration file given.  ntpd parses the file to a config tree,
reverses that tree to a saveconfig output file (in a somewhat
normalized form, no comments), and exits before any of the config_tree
stuff is applied.

> How does this checking work?  I really don't want error messages from
> debugging to clutter up my system log files.

It's a round-trip test using a file that should touch each crevice of
the BNF syntax for ntp.conf, to prevent regressions in the parser and
saveconfig code.  If it works, the output compsave.conf is identical
to the input complete.conf.

> Something like this could be handy for checking edits to a config file before
> restarting ntpd.

Sure, you could have an option to check syntax only which didn't
include the saveconfig part.

> PS: configfile and saveconfigquit aren't mentioned in ntp-dev/html/ntpd.html

None of the --longoptions are mentioned in the ntpd.html but
--configfile is equivalent to -c as --help output will tell you.  Not
mentioning --saveconfigquit on the end-user page is intentional on my
part.  I assume it is useful only for this round-trip make check test.

> This is from the configure step on FreeBSD.  Why does anything in NTP even
> know that gnome exists?  (Context is that I have a script that scans the log
> files looking for troubles.  "not found" is one of the strings it looks for
> because some shell script was missing once upon a time.)  No big deal, it's
> just clutter and I can hack around it.
>
> ...
> checking for pkg-config... /usr/local/bin/pkg-config
> checking if pkg-config is at least version 0.15.0... yes
> checking if libevent 2.0.9 or later is installed... gnome-config: not found
> no

Nothing in NTP even knows that gnome exists.  The last test is doing
something close to:

pkg-config --libs libevent

The message is likely coming from pkg-config because you have a .pc
file somewhere on your PKG_CONFIG_PATH (or the default .pc path used
by your pkg-config) mentioning gnome-config.pc but do not have a
gnome-config.pc on that path.

Thanks for the testing,
Dave Hart


More information about the hackers mailing list