Pike-devel December 2025

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

4 participants
4 discussions

Re: Availability of Pike SRPMs for EL8 and newer builds
by H. William Welliver 11 Dec '25

11 Dec '25

So, as usual my time estimates were a bit off. I’ve cleaned my scripts up a little and have posted them here: https://hg.sr.ht/~hww3/pike_rpm_build I use docker and rpmbuild to generate the RPMS, and I have successfully built and tested packages for EL8 and EL9 on amd64 and aarch64. Things don’t build on EL10 for a couple of reasons; I think some work will be required to get things working properly there (a combination of dependencies being renamed/deleted as well as some build errors probably triggered by the latest versions of gcc. I’ve included the non-working EL10 setup in case anyone wants to take a stab at fixing the problems. The use of docker allows us (hopefully) to have a reproducible, pristine build environment, and also allows RPMS to be built from non-linux platforms without needing to have a linux system set up. There are notes in the repo above that describe how to build the docker build images, and then use them to prepare (S)RPMS, as well as the basic steps needed to support new versions of Enterprise Linux. I did notice a minor problem on Oracle Linux 9 with there being odd dependencies that couldn’t be resolved (Java related, mainly and as per the usual).You can ignore them or better yet, break them into a sub-package. I’ll try to make time to upload my builds later today or tomorrow. Comments/questions/suggestions are welcome, as always. Bill > On Dec 6, 2025, at 9:00 PM, Maksim AbuAjamieh <eng.maksim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Bill, > > Thanks so much for the update and for taking the time to clean things up and make them accessible. > > I’ll look forward to the SRPMs whenever you’re ready to share them, but it is perfectly fine if you would prefer to just share what you already have. I really appreciate the effort you are putting into this. > > Best regards, > Maksim > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 7:41 AM <william(a)welliver.org <mailto:william@welliver.org>> wrote: >> Hi- >> >> That would be my fault... I've always been so focused on the rpms but >> the srpm is an artifact I seem to forget to upload the SRPM. >> >> I have a spec file that's never been checked into version control, as >> well as some scripts that I've used to produce the RPMs available for >> download... Part of the reason it's always languished on my build system >> is that the spec file needs changing for various el releases, and >> there's a separate dependency installation step required to get the >> builds to work. I didn't want a proliferation of files in the pike >> packaging directory. I will try to clean those up a bit and put them >> somewhere publicly accessible. >> >> Note: pike doesn't seem to build properly on el10, I suspect due to the >> version of gcc in use. The fix is a one-liner, but a patch is necessary >> until a new release is made. >> >> Stand by for an update on this, probably in a day or two. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill

1 0

Pike 9.0.11 (beta 3) released.
by Henrik Grubbstr�m (Lysator) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 11 Dec '25

11 Dec '25

The above is now available for download from the Pike site. Please test and enjoy. /grubba

1 0

Re: Playing music using pike and SDL.
by Martin Nilsson (lvl 60) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 03 Dec '25

03 Dec '25

Were you not able to get any C code to play through SDL either? Does your SDL library have a mixer compiled in it (I think it is optional)?

3 2

compile errors
by Lance Dillon 02 Dec '25

02 Dec '25

At least Pike-v8.0.1916 on Fedora 43 fails in src/modules/HTTPLoop/requestobject.c: Line 693, change: int true=1; setsockopt( a->to->fd, SOL_TCP, TCP_CORK, &true, 4 ); to: int istrue=1; setsockopt( a->to->fd, SOL_TCP, TCP_CORK, &istrue, 4 ); Same with line 796 with false, change to isfalse. true and false are reserved words with c99. Or add -std=gnu90 flag (with gcc at least) so that true and false aren't reserved anymore. Probably changing the code is better. Also, src/modules/_WhiteFish/blobs.c: Change: static void exit_blobs_struct( ); to: static void exit_blobs_struct(struct object *o); linkfarm.c: Change: static void exit_linkfarm_struct( ); to: static void exit_linkfarm_struct(struct object *o); These might have a gcc option to prevent this error (signatures don't match), but I don't know what it is. Just something quick I found compiling for a new system.

2 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel December 2025