Geoffrey Lee wrote:
>
> > > > line "#!/bin/bash" in their scripts.
> > >
> > > there is a difference between Requires and Prereq
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > sh-utils does not build. The config claims that gcc doesn't work (well
> > > > how I compiled all above then?)
> > >
> > > i think we have to choose the BuildReq that we put. gcc should be installed.
> > > We're not gonna put BuildReq: gcc everywhere, do we?
> > And I am a BIG jerk, yeah? Read again "how I compiled everything
> > above"???? Pixel I am not THAT STUPID... I really waited that you people
> > react such way: "Comp doesn't work! - Did you plug it?"
> > The problem is on "configure" of the tarball. Maybe it is generated by
>
> As of 11mdk, which is dated Jul 28 timestamp on our main distribution site,
> I have tested and I can verify that it works on our buildhosts flawlessly.
>
> You are missing something, but if you cannot give the exact error that
> configure generates, we cannot help you.
I understand. As I said my listing is not a strict buglist. Some of
these problems could be related to the system where these packages are
being built. On what concerns lilo and hdparms I'm absolutely sure that
this is the source of the problem. It seems they still don't like the
new kernel stuff. However, on what concerns sh-utils, the problem was
relatively different: while configure checks the system it claims that
"found gcc" and when it goes testing the compiler, it claims "gcc works
- no". Right now, it is hard to establish if configure is strictly
broken or there is some weird "feature" on my system that triggers this
error. At first look I don't see anything suspicious on sh-utils source
& configs. Meanwhile my gcc manages to compile everything else (btw - I
compile/build tons of programs every week, that's part of my job). Well,
in a week I'll start building a system almost from ground 0 by using a
very basic set of packages. And then, something may come out more
clearly.
Ektanoor
