Hello, On 08/15/2019 04:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:On 08/15/2019 03:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Jean-Marc Pigeon via blfs-dev wrote:setting a symlink as /usr/include/libxml -> /usr/include/libxm2/libxml is good enough for libreoffice build to be successful.I do not have such symlink (and there is a typo in yours) and libreoffice-6.3.0.4 built fineWithout that symlink libreoffice is not building properly (on my side).while libreoffice is expecting /usr/include/libxmlWhere? Why? My --with-system-libxml results in: checking which libxml to use... external checking for LIBXML... yes And I'd expect this to work because of LIBXML_CFLAGS="-I$usr/include/libxml2" in ./configure and source including <libxml/*> "from there".Ok... please correct me if wrong but I see no "LIBXML_CFLAGS="-I$usr/include/libxml2" reference within Version 2019-08-15 BLFS book for LibreOfficeNot within BLFS, but within the ./configure of libreoffice-6.3.0.4 . I do not claim to understand their build systems, but I'm rather certain that this line is the (only) key for libreoffice-6.3.0.4 to add /usr/include/libxm2/ to its include path on my system so your symlink is not needed (and nobody else seems to need it either).This point seems rather important..... This could explain discrepancy between our build.Right. That's why I assumed you may have some CFLAGS set that e.g. "override" libreoffice's attempt to add -I/usr/include/libxm2/ . BTW: I always appreciate a more verbose build log, but make V=1 does not help for libreoffice. Does anybody have a clue? Would be helpful to see the resulting CFLAGS.What is the BLFS "official line" about this?Without knowing exactly I'd say: Some packages are known to not respect your CFLAGS in the way you'd hope they do. If this causes any trouble, unset CFLAGS (or CXXFLAGS or similar) and try again. If this works, it is not a problem of your system (i.e. any libxml symlink) but one of libroffice (in this case; well, or of your CFLAGS). If having custom CFLAGS set is "official line" and libreoffice turns out to have a problem with that, then this should probably be mentioned. Uwe
I have worked about the CFLAGS possibility, not proven yet.
first...
/usr/lib/pkgconfig/libxml-2.0.pc contents seems ok to me
;--------------------------------------------------------
prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=/usr
libdir=/usr/lib
includedir=/usr/include
modules=1
Name: libXML
Version: 2.9.9
Description: libXML library version2.
Requires:
Libs: -L${libdir} -lxml2
Libs.private: -lz -llzma -lm
Cflags: -I${includedir}/libxml2
;-----------------------------------------------------------
second...
the problem is ocuring within package downloaded by libreoffice.
namely. lxml
;------------------------------------------------------------------
building 'lxml.etree' extension
creating build/temp.linux-x86_64-3.7
creating build/temp.linux-x86_64-3.7/src
creating build/temp.linux-x86_64-3.7/src/lxml
gcc -Wno-unused-result -Wsign-compare -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O3 -Wall
-fPIC -DCYTHON_CLINE_IN_TRACEBACK=1 -Isrc -Isrc/lxml/includes
-I/usr/include/python3.7m -c src/lxml/etree.c -o
build/temp.linux-x86_64-3.7/src/lxml/etree.o -w
In file included from src/lxml/etree.c:619:src/lxml/includes/etree_defs.h:14:10: fatal error: libxml/xmlversion.h: No such file or directory
14 | #include "libxml/xmlversion.h" ;-------------------------------------------------------------------- There is NO, I repeat NO, lxml package defined within BLFS (found no reference), so it is normal libreoffice is downloading it. My guess the downloaded lxml lxml-4.1.1.tgz is not set/ready to work with libxml2? If you have an lxml already installed (libxml2 compatible), this could explain our building difference... possible??? -- seen "Linux from scratch" and looking for ISO files www.osukiss.org
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
