building bitcoin on unix is now a pain thanks to bitcoin devs

[r3wt]

"if it aint broke don't fix it."

* r3wt slaps bitcoin dev team

[behindtext]

which OS are you building on?

getting bitcoind to build and run on openbsd or bitrig was such a pain that it was the starting point for btcd (see my sig).

[r3wt]

which OS are you building on?

getting bitcoind to build and run on openbsd or bitrig was such a pain that it was the starting point for btcd (see my sig).

elementary OS luna. some little deviant version of Ubuntu

[gmaxwell]

Thank you for your super helpful and descriptive problem report. The complete lack of information about what version(s) you're attempting to build and what reasons the build are failing have helpfully freed me from making any actual effort to assist with your problem.

Perhaps next time you could be a little more vague about your problems, insulting to people who write software you use without any compensation from you, and indifferent to any benefits (of whatever change is implicated) tob other people?  ... because as is I still feel some residual desire to solve whatever problem you're having here but I'm sure from your yellow ignore throbber that you could do better.

[Aseras]

Thank you for your super helpful and descriptive problem report. The complete lack of information about what version(s) you're attempting to build and what reasons the build are failing have helpfully freed me from making any actual effort to assist with your problem.

Perhaps next time you could be a little more vague about your problems, insulting to people who write software you use without any compensation from you, and indifferent to any benefits (of whatever change is implicated) tob other people?  ... because as is I still feel some residual desire to solve whatever problem you're having here but I'm sure from your yellow ignore throbber that you could do better.

well said   lol.

[r3wt]

Thank you for your super helpful and descriptive problem report. The complete lack of information about what version(s) you're attempting to build and what reasons the build are failing have helpfully freed me from making any actual effort to assist with your problem.

Perhaps next time you could be a little more vague about your problems, insulting to people who write software you use without any compensation from you, and indifferent to any benefits (of whatever change is implicated) tob other people?  ... because as is I still feel some residual desire to solve whatever problem you're having here but I'm sure from your yellow ignore throbber that you could do better.

the build didn't fail genius, it was just a pain in the ass. the old way was simple and showed alot of helpful debugging information. see i also have other clients i have to build on  aregular basis (http://github.com/r3wt/) and the new fancy smancy version of bitcoin interfere's with my dependencies.

This was the old way that didn't interfere with me:

HOW TO BUILD BITCOIN IN 30 Seconds

Code:

cd bitcoin/src/leveldb

Code:

make

Code:

make libmemenv.a

Code:

cd ../..

Code:

qmake USE_PNP=1

Code:

make

why replace this simple, easy to understand method of producing a working executable with a ridiculous autoconf and automake script that works half ass at best. i don't understand. try and help me understand, oh holy one of self righteousness who is indelible of ever making mistakes. bitcoin qt compiling wasn't broken why mess with it?

and atleast if your gonna throw stones, be a doll and point me to the last working version that didn't use this god forsaken autoconf script so that i can compile the shit on my computer. please and thank you.

IF IT AINT BROKE, DONT FIX IT!

[r3wt]

Perhaps next time you could be a little more vague about your problems, insulting to people who write software you use without any compensation from you

the software i use without no compensation was written by satoshi, not the people who manage it now. i have no beef with the software, its the unnecesary extra steps that have been added to the compiling process that was easy and familiar.

so do you see how  implicitly wrong your statement that i'm insulting the people who wrote bitcoin? because that is not what i'm doing at all good sir, i'm addressing the people who are fucking it up, for lack of a better word.

[theymos]

the software i use without no compensation was written by satoshi, not the people who manage it now.

Why don't you use 0.3.19 if the current developers aren't adding anything?

[r3wt]

the software i use without no compensation was written by satoshi, not the people who manage it now.

Why don't you use 0.3.19 if the current developers aren't adding anything?

ok, let me try it again a little more respectfully.

I am very displeased with the change in compiling procedures. where might i find the previous version with normal compiling procedures(make and qmake) thanks.

[gmaxwell]

I am very displeased with the change in compiling procedures. where might i find the previous version with normal compiling procedures(make and qmake) thanks.

How about _any_ released version, including the most current one? (though the procedure you gave there is needlessly complicated in any case)

Though I wonder why you are displeased  with Bitcoin being build-able in the same way as virtually every other open source unix package for the past twenty years:

Code:

./configure && make

and instead prefer your six step process (which doesn't even suffice for building on many systems).

[r3wt]

I am very displeased with the change in compiling procedures. where might i find the previous version with normal compiling procedures(make and qmake) thanks.

How about _any_ released version, including the most current one? (though the procedure you gave there is needlessly complicated in any case)

Though I wonder why you are displeased  with Bitcoin being build-able in the same way as virtually every other open source unix package for the past twenty years:

Code:

./configure && make

and instead prefer your six step process (which doesn't even suffice for building on many systems).

you're not understanding though, this new build process results in a non executable binary on my os. thats why i need the other method which doesn't else why would i even bother making this thread?

[Luke-Jr]

you're not understanding though, this new build process results in a non executable binary on my os. thats why i need the other method which doesn't else why would i even bother making this thread?

How can anyone understand that when you haven't said it?

Also, what OS is this? Is it actually an OS we support? If not, don't expect it to work right, even if it compiles and runs.
If you want to change that, perhaps you should be volunteering to maintain a port for said OS.

Finally, the autotools still is only in git, which is explicitly untested and unsupported.
It is not a release at all, not even alpha or rc, let alone beta (yes, I'm aware beta usually comes before rc, but that's backward for this project).
I still have a long list of "issues" I have with it myself, but the way forward (to an eventual release) is fixing those issues, not regressing back to a broken set-of-inconsistent-makefiles-that-only-work-with-mangling.

[gmaxwell]

the build didn't fail genius, it was just a pain in the ass. the old way was simple and showed alot of helpful debugging information.

you're not understanding though, this new build process results in a non executable binary on my os.

[r3wt]

you're not understanding though, this new build process results in a non executable binary on my os. thats why i need the other method which doesn't else why would i even bother making this thread?

How can anyone understand that when you haven't said it?

Also, what OS is this? Is it actually an OS we support? If not, don't expect it to work right, even if it compiles and runs.
If you want to change that, perhaps you should be volunteering to maintain a port for said OS.

Finally, the autotools still is only in git, which is explicitly untested and unsupported.
It is not a release at all, not even alpha or rc, let alone beta (yes, I'm aware beta usually comes before rc, but that's backward for this project).
I still have a long list of "issues" I have with it myself, but the way forward (to an eventual release) is fixing those issues, not regressing back to a broken set-of-inconsistent-makefiles-that-only-work-with-mangling.

ah my mistake i didn't check the releases. i found 8.5 and its compiling...

* r3wt eats a heaping helping of humble pie.

[e4xit]

r3wt, you sir, are an ass.

That is all.