On Monday 30 March 2009 11:41:09 am lux-integ wrote: > > If you're going to run autoreconf, always run "autoreconf -iv". The -i > > is important since libtoolize won't be run and stuff like the above > > happens. The -v is important so that you see what autoreconf is doing. > > > > -- > > Dan > > just ran it again with clean sources did a) autoreconf -iv and b) > autoreconf -ivf (having scanned man pages) and it came back with same > result each time (see below) :- > > autoreconf: Entering directory `.' > autoreconf: configure.in: not using Gettext > autoreconf: running: aclocal -I /usr/X11R7.4/share/aclocal > configure.in:216: warning: macro `AM_GLIB_GNU_GETTEXT' not found in library > autoreconf: configure.in: tracing > autoreconf: running: libtoolize --copy > libtoolize: putting auxiliary files in `.'. > libtoolize: copying file `./ltmain.sh' > libtoolize: Consider adding `AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4])' to configure.in and > libtoolize: rerunning libtoolize, to keep the correct libtool macros > in-tree. libtoolize: Consider adding `-I m4' to ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS in > Makefile.am. configure.in:216: warning: macro `AM_GLIB_GNU_GETTEXT' not > found in library autoreconf: running: /usr/bin/autoconf > configure.in:94: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PATH_CLN > If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow. > See the Autoconf documentation. > configure.in:97: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_DEFINE > configure.in:216: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_GLIB_GNU_GETTEXT > autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoconf failed with exit status: 1 > > is there a test to ensure the installed autoconf is working properly? > > lux-integ
I have just checked my clfs (x86_64) build logs. It was built in November 2008. It had autoconf-2.63 and automake-1.10.1. Both compiled and pass all the tests hitch-free. Is there a problem therefore with autoconf-2.63? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
