Thank you so much ken! Your test to run the configure with and without the --disable-static switch was great and verified the validity of that switch. Brilliant. I will add that to my toolbelt !!
Also, I went back and checked. The only libs created after the make install of texinfo were: usr/lib/texinfo/XSParagraph.so /usr/lib/texinfo/XSParagraph.la I did suspect that possibly the switch might be used by a called subscript but was not sure. Yep, It makes a difference and needs to be used. I guess what puzzled/concerned me more is that the warning was not in the online build logs. I really thought I might have had something wrong. Now I know that a switch might be used in a subtask even if it is not recognized in the parent :) I'm a bit smarter because of you :D Thank you and all you do! On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 06:48:52PM -0400, Support wrote: > > LFS 7.9 In Chapter 6.66.1 the configure of texinfo gets a warning that > the > > option flag --disable-static is unrecognized. > > > > configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --disable-static > > > > However the book says to use that particular option flag. > > > > ./configure --prefix=/usr --disable-static > > > > > > > This warning does not show in the online build logs for texinfo at: > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/...31-texinfo-6.1 > > < > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/7.9/i7-5820K/logs/131-texinfo-6.1 > > > > > > Please note: For me texinfo did build successfully so no actual issue. > > > > Also, in case it is relevant, I am building on a debian 7.9 host with a > 32 > > bit Pentium CPU. > > Build target is 32 bit. > > > > I'm just curious as to why I need to use this option flag if it is > > unrecognized? > > Why does this warning not show in the online build logs? > > > > I have to admit that I seem to have missed that switch in my own > builds. It was added in r11032 during the package freeze, because > of ticket #3896. > > Looking at the ticket, the static library is in a directory in > /usr/lib. My own scripts assume that only static libs in /usr/lib > itself are likely to be linked by packages, but perhaps I'm being > lax there. The details in that ticket certainly look valid. > > Hmm, yes I get the same message at the end of configure, and logging > all the output I also got it before the configure started. But > within the configure log, when I did not have that switch I got: > > checking if cc static flag -static works... yes > checking if cc supports -c -o file.o... yes > checking if cc supports -c -o file.o... (cached) yes > checking whether the cc linker (/usr/bin/ld -m elf_x86_64) supports > shared libraries... yes > checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no > checking dynamic linker characteristics... GNU/Linux ld.so > checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate > checking whether stripping libraries is possible... yes > checking if libtool supports shared libraries... yes > checking whether to build shared libraries... yes > checking whether to build static libraries... yes > ^^^^ > > but with it I get > > checking if cc static flag -static works... yes > checking if cc supports -c -o file.o... yes > checking if cc supports -c -o file.o... (cached) yes > checking whether the cc linker (/usr/bin/ld -m elf_x86_64) supports > shared libraries... yes > checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no > checking dynamic linker characteristics... GNU/Linux ld.so > checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate > checking whether stripping libraries is possible... yes > checking if libtool supports shared libraries... yes > checking whether to build shared libraries... yes > checking whether to build static libraries... no > ^^^ > > So it is indeed recognised by the configure script in one of the > subdirectories, and doing a DESTDIR install confirms that it works. > > Summary: because it was a late change, and that error message is > totally unexpected, it does not show in the build logs. But it > works fine despite the message. Autotools can be fun at times. > > As to why nobody else has noticed this until now, your guess is as > good as mine. > > ĸen > -- > This email was written using 100% recycled letters. > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > > Do not top post on this list. > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style >
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
