On 7/30/19 2:21 PM, Jean-Marc Pigeon via blfs-dev wrote:
Hello Bruce,
On 07/30/2019 02:50 PM, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
On 7/30/19 1:37 PM, Jean-Marc Pigeon via blfs-dev wrote:
On 07/30/2019 01:55 PM, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
On 7/30/19 12:39 PM, Jean-Marc Pigeon via blfs-dev wrote:
Hello,
Trying to compile libreoffice on 8.5 and get an autogen.sh error
;------------------------------------------------------------
.......
checking whether g++ supports -fno-default-inline... yes
checking whether g++ supports -fno-enforce-eh-specs... yes
checking for posix_fallocate... yes
checking whether to add custom build version... no
checking for java... no
checking the installed JDK... configure: error: Java not found. You
need at least jdk-1.6
Error running configure at ./autogen.sh line 296
;-------------------------------------------------------------
According my understanding, only
Archive-Zip-1.64, UnZip-6.0, Wget-1.20.3, Which-2.21, and Zip-3.0
are required to build libreoffice.
Furthermore, I see no reference to java/jdk with recommended or
optional list.
Seems there is no --without-jdk option..
Puzzled...
What is the detail I am overlooking?
Any hint will be welcome....
Should "Java" added to the "required" dependencies within book chapter
39?
Did you add --without-java to the ./autogen.sh options? I'll note that
if you installed the recommended apache-ant, then java was required for
that.
-- Bruce
before my original post: Tried --without-jdk, no luck
your suggestion is a good one, --without-java allow me to go further.
My understanding of "required" seems not to be the good one.
To me required means, installing a system with the bare minimum (a
compiler), PLUS the required packages. The compilation will go on and
the package will be working (may be without all bell and whistle, but
working) .
I didn't install apache-ant (on purpose).
According my (new) understanding of the libreoffice BLFS page,
build will integrate an "old version" of apache-ant,
which must have java.
(such Java become mandatory, and autogen.sh is complaining....
To be consistent with itself, libreoffice should include and old
version of java too).
May I suggest, to change a little bit the libreoffice page
and merge "Recommended" to "required".
Such the build could be run on a real and effective dependencies list.
(a validated common ground)
In the mid time, I will try to define the minimal libreoffice
dependencies
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/stable/introduction/notes-on-building.html
"Recommended means that BLFS strongly suggests this package is installed
first for a clean and trouble-free build, that won't have issues either
during the build process, or at run-time. The instructions in the book
assume these packages are installed. Some changes or workarounds may be
required if these packages are not installed. "
I read again notes-on-building.html page and BLFS is not complying
with its own rule.
with only the required package
Archive-Zip-1.64, UnZip-6.0, Wget-1.20.3, Which-2.21, and Zip-3.0
the java build defect shouldn't show up, but it is, this means
the required list is not "up to date" :;
Lets go a little bit further.
The libreoffice autogen.sh include package as boost, harfbuzz, etc.
It is BLFS team privilege to say:
"To have a really working libreoffice, build need to have
with-system-harfbuzz with-system-boost, etc."
From the team stand point, those packages are "required".
My way I would say (from BLSF prospective).
If a package is implied by the proposed build context (autogen.sh or
configure arguments), then the said package is mandatory/required.
If the reader do not want some proposed build context and "mess" with
book directives he is on its own.
The book mantra is "If you follow given instructions, you should have
our same result".
It's more like we think you can build the package without the
recommended dependencies, possibly with some instruction changes, but we
haven't tried every combination. We have tried the Required+Recommended
combination and it works for us.
It appears that you are disagreeing with our definition of recommended,
and that's fine. However we are not going to change it.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
