[code]
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -DPACKAGE=\"xmlsec1\" -I../..
-I../../include -D__XMLSEC_FUNCTION__=__FUNCTION__ -DXMLSEC_NO_XSLT=1
-DXMLSEC_NO_XKMS=1 -I/opt/firefox/include/firefox-1.0.6/nspr
-I/opt/firefox/include/firefox-1.0.6/nss -DXMLSEC_CRYPTO_NSS=1
-I/usr/include/libxml2 -O3 -march=athlon-fx -MT keytrans.lo -MD -MP -MF
.deps/keytrans.Tpo -c keytrans.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/keytrans.o
keytrans.c:1: error: syntax error at end of input
make[3]: *** [keytrans.lo] Error 1
[/code]
The file contains simply "dummy". Replacing that with a real copy
allows the build to continue on. I'm assuming that part of the 1.2.6
patch is responsible for doing this, though I haven't looked through
it.. in any case, the build is continuing as I write. (Just using the
..-1.2.6.patch is worse after a /s/1.2.6/1.2.9/ applied.)
I came across the same, but I went to check that keytrans only after
quite some digging + googling... The reason behind the file's content
being erased still puzzles me - the 1.2.6 should not get applied, as we
manually set 1.2.9. But true enough, seems the only way such a thing
would happen. You could try and erase the old patch, and see what happnes.
Looks like it's as simple as it not finding the ldap lib; thunderbird
has a build of it, so I assume if you put your thunderbird lib directory
in /etc/ld.so.conf and run ldconfig it would be found, no?
That should be right, although I'm not experienced enough to tell if
that'd suffice... You seem to have the same config, ie. FF w/o LDAP +
TBird, yet strangely enough my build complained about it and your's
didn't. Is it OOo2.0b2 (it's m125, btw) or newer?
I'll let you know how my current build attempt works out, and I'll try
to write up a simple-as-possible build script. A couple patches will be
kinda annoying; I guess the sub-packages will just have to be patched
before they're copied into the source tree.
You mean unpack -> patch -> copy? Why not go with the current system of
putting the tarball in download of the respective module and a patch
named the same? Then you'd only need to apply one patch, ie. the one...
creating another patch :-) Or perhaps I'm missing something.
It's been compiling for another several hours now, I guess I'll just let
it run and get some sleep. Really curious if it'll be usable afterwards.
--
David Ciecierski
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
