Subject: bug#6122: closed (Re: bug#6122: START_FILES is undefined on solaris2.10)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 16:27:02 +0000

Your bug report

#6122: START_FILES is undefined on solaris2.10

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
6122: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=6122
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#6122: START_FILES is undefined on solaris2.10
From: Dan Nicolaescu <[email-masked]>
To: Lawrence Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 12:26:44 -0400
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Lawrence Mitchell <[email-masked]> writes:

> The recent changes to src/Makefile.in removed a conditional
> definition of START_FILES.

Thanks, this should be fixed now.

Subject: START_FILES is undefined on solaris2.10
From: Lawrence Mitchell <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 09:54:25 +0100
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

The recent changes to src/Makefile.in removed a conditional
definition of START_FILES.

| Author: Dan Nicolaescu <[email-masked]>
| Date:   Fri Apr 23 00:21:18 2010 -0700

|     Simplify STARTFILES definition.
|     * Makefile.in (STARTFILES): Remove conditional code, not needed anymore.

At least on solaris2.10, START_FILES is now undefined when
building, which causes make to fail because it doesn't know how
to build the STARTFILES target.

This fix to s/sol2-10.h allows Emacs to build successfully here,
although I am not sure if it is the correct one:

diff --git a/src/s/sol2-10.h b/src/s/sol2-10.h
index 865e175..d21bf85 100644
--- a/src/s/sol2-10.h
+++ b/src/s/sol2-10.h
@@ -27,5 +27,7 @@
 /* This is needed for the system_process_attributes implementation.  */
 #define _STRUCTURED_PROC 1

+#define START_FILES
+
 /* arch-tag: 7c51a134-5469-4d16-aa00-d69224640eeb
    (do not change this comment) */

I do not know if a similar fix should be applied in s/sol2-6.h or
s/usg5-4.h.

Cheers,

Lawrence
-- 
[email-masked]