On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 10:08:47AM -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> From: <to...@tuxteam.de>
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:30:42 +0100
> > But perhaps Make is right and utelnetd is built and ready to go?
> >
> > What evidence would you have that it is not so?
>
> # ls -ld /usr/local/bin/u*
> ls: cannot access '/usr/local/bin/u*': No such file or directory
>
> # cd /usr
> # find . -type f -name "utelnetd"
> #
>
> > Perhaps you need a "make clean" before, to force Make to actually
> > do its thing? Missing that target, you might want to remove utelned,
> > and perhaps utelnetd.o.
>
> # make clean
> PROGS: utelnetd
> rm -f utelnetd *.o core
>
> Now make gives a flock of complaints. See below. Eg. grantpt vs.
> getpt.
>
> The problem is Debian differing from the system where where the
> developer worked? I need to change some names?
>
> Thanks, ... P.
>
> # make DEBUG=1 -f ./Makefile
> PROGS: utelnetd
> gcc -I. -pipe -DSHELLPATH=\"/bin/login\" -Wall -DDEBUG -g -Os -c -o
> utelnetd.o utelnetd.c
> utelnetd.c: In function ‘getpty’:
> utelnetd.c:232:13: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘grantpt’; did
> you mean ‘getpt’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> 232 | if (grantpt(p)<0 || unlockpt(p)<0) {
> | ^~~~~~~
> | getpt[...] Hm. No. This function should exist. Either your compile process is hitting the wrong libc headers, or something else is amiss. The error message just means that the compiler hasn't seen a declaration for grantpt. It /should/ have seen one. (the other error messages are in the same ballpark). Now if the header file was just missing, the complaints would be different, I guess. Cheers -- tomás
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
