Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 5/19/06, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
./configure: line 19219: test: too many arguments
It needs to be regenerated...unfortuantely, the tarball was created with
older autotools as you suspected. Now to figure out why it's stripping
the so off, or maybe just fix the test in configure manually.
Maybe we can just run autoconf rather than autoreconf since that also
calls libtoolize. I'll try it out. Can you see if the package builds
with the broken configure for you?
Yes it does, and the shared libs are named correctly.
Hmm. This is weird. The part of configure where it's broken is that
part where there's an sed to change the file extension on shared
libraries in the libtool script.
if test -z `grep -e 'shared_ext.*shrext' $ofile`; then
# Make sure $shared_ext gets set to $shrext
if sed -e 's/shared_ext/shrext/g' "$ofile" > "${ofile}T"; then
mv "${ofile}T" "$ofile"
chmod +x "$ofile"
else
rm -f "${ofile}T"
{ { echo "$as_me:$LINENO: error: unable to update shared_ext." >&5
echo "$as_me: error: unable to update shared_ext." >&2;}
{ (exit 1); exit 1; }; }
fi
fi
The first line is 19219. This is strange, and I don't know enough
about autotools.
Hey, the new version of libdrm has ltmain.sh created by
libtool-1.5.22. Yay! aclocal is automake-1.9.6, and configure.ac
looks like autoconf-2.5.7. So, the good news is that this probably
won't be a problem after this release.
I don't know if 2.0.1 is compatible with current Xorg or intended for
7.1. Browsing the diff, I see a couple of changes that _look_ to me
possibly cause compatibility probs. One is specific to alpha arch so no
biggie for the x86 target of BLFS, and the SIGIO mentioned in the
changelog I don't know where (if) it's used currently. Rest looks like
code cleanups except for the hash fix. Lets hope that xorg stays close
to it's schedule for 7.1. They are a week behind on the initial target
for the RC3 release...today was the scheduled release date for 7.1, but
RC2 was a week or so late too IIRC.
And now for the fix: 'libtoolize --force' and then build as directed.
:-) Now, comparing the resulting libs...'readelf -s'. The Values are
different, but contain identical symbols.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
