Hi Clyde,
from the information you have posted, you have misinterpreted the
problem. An install-sh file can be referenced in many packages (I
think its use is part of the autotools system (autoconf, automake,
libtool).
configure: creating ./config.status
config.status: creating Makefile
config.status: WARNING: 'Makefile.in' seems to ignore the --datarootdir setting
config.status: executing default commands
chmod: cannot access './install-sh': No such file or directory
That is not fatal.
=== configuring in testsuite (/mnt/lfs/sources/expect5.45.4/testsuite)
configure: running /bin/sh ./configure --disable-option-checking
'--prefix=/tools' '--with-tcl=/tools/lib' '--with-tclinclude=/tools/include'
--cache-file=/dev/null --srcdir=.
checking for correct TEA configuration... ok (TEA 3.9)
et cetera....then at the end:
gcc \
-pipe -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -fPIC \
-Wl,--export-dynamic \
-o expect exp_main_exp.o \
-L/mnt/lfs/sources/expect5.45.4 -lexpect5.45.4 \
-L/tools/lib -ltcl8.6 \
-ldl -lm \
-Wl,-rpath,/tools/lib \
-Wl,-rpath,/tools/lib/expect5.45.4
/mnt/lfs/tools/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.3.0/../../../../x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
warning: libutil.so.1, needed by
/mnt/lfs/sources/expect5.45.4/libexpect5.45.4.so, not found (try using -rpath
or -rpath-link)
/mnt/lfs/tools/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.3.0/../../../../x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
warning: libpthread.so.0, needed by /tools/lib/libtcl8.6.so, not found (try
using -rpath or -rpath-link)
These are the errors which *are* fatal. I'll comment on the first
two, but basically after one error for a missing library all bets
are off.
The first missing file is /tools/lib/libutil.so.1 - that should have
been installed by glibc.
The second is /tools/lib/libpthread.so.0 which should also have been
installed by glibc.
/tools/lib/libtcl8.6.so: undefined reference to
`pthread_setspecific@GLIBC_2.2.5'
OK, I'll comment on this one too, since it is almost certainly
defined in libpthread.so.
Do you have those two files ? The version .so.X* should be symbolic
links to .so files : if you have them, does file report they are
broken (i.e. pointing to something which does not exist) ?
ĸen
Ken,
I have those two files, they exist in /tools/lib, during the expect5.45.4 make,
as symlinks to existing lib*-2.27.so files, even though gcc complains that
they're not there. (?)
Could the fact that these errors reference "GLIBC2.2.5", when the book and I
are using glibc 2.27, be a hint?
FWIW, my aging memory may be wrong, but I believe I successfully compiled all
of Chapter 5 and 6 during an earlier run on this machine (but since gave up the
partition during a rebuild done for other reasons), so I'll admit it's not a
squeaky clean OOB Mint install.
But then FWIW, I just successfully compiled expect5.45.4 inside a fresh
VirtualBox using Manjaro, an Arch distro. So blame Mint...
Oh well, I'll probably reboot to bare metal, or just start living inside
VirtualBox, but nailing this issue would be educational.
My version-check.sh reports:
bash, version 4.3.48(1)-release
/bin/sh -> /bin/bash
Binutils: (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.26.1
bison (GNU Bison) 3.0.4
/usr/bin/yacc -> /usr/bin/bison.yacc
bzip2, Version 1.0.6, 6-Sept-2010.
Coreutils: 8.25
diff (GNU diffutils) 3.3
find (GNU findutils) 4.7.0-git
GNU Awk 4.1.3, API: 1.1 (GNU MPFR 3.1.4, GNU MP 6.1.0)
/usr/bin/awk -> /usr/bin/gawk
gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
g++ (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
(Ubuntu GLIBC 2.23-0ubuntu10) 2.23
grep (GNU grep) 2.25
gzip 1.6
Linux version 4.13.0-37-generic (buildd@lcy01-amd64-012) (gcc version 5.4.0
20160609 (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9)) #42~16.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 7
16:03:28 UTC 2018
m4 (GNU M4) 1.4.17
GNU Make 4.1
GNU patch 2.7.5
Perl version='5.22.1';
sed (GNU sed) 4.2.2
tar (GNU tar) 1.28
texi2any (GNU texinfo) 6.1
xz (XZ Utils) 5.1.0alpha
g++ compilation OK
User lfs has the following environment set:
BASH=/bin/bash
BASHOPTS=checkwinsize:cmdhist:complete_fullquote:expand_aliases:extquote:force_fignore:hostcomplete:interactive_comments:progcomp:promptvars:sourcepath
BASH_ALIASES=()
BASH_ARGC=()
BASH_ARGV=()
BASH_CMDS=()
BASH_LINENO=()
BASH_SOURCE=()
BASH_VERSINFO=([0]="4" [1]="3" [2]="48" [3]="1" [4]="release"
[5]="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu")
BASH_VERSION='4.3.48(1)-release'
COLUMNS=102
DIRSTACK=()
EUID=1001
GROUPS=()
HISTFILE=/home/lfs/.bash_history
HISTFILESIZE=500
HISTSIZE=500
HOME=/home/lfs
HOSTNAME=Dell-Mint
HOSTTYPE=x86_64
IFS=$' \t\n'
LC_ALL=POSIX
LFS=/mnt/lfs
LFS_TGT=x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu
LINES=60
MACHTYPE=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
MAILCHECK=60
MAKEFLAGS=-j1
OLDPWD=/mnt/lfs/sources
OPTERR=1
OPTIND=1
OSTYPE=linux-gnu
PATH=/tools/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
PIPESTATUS=([0]="0")
PPID=4290
PS1='${debian_chroot:+($debian_chroot)}\u@\h \w \$ '
PS2='> '
PS4='+ '
PWD=/mnt/lfs/sources/expect5.45.4
SHELL=/bin/bash
SHELLOPTS=braceexpand:emacs:histexpand:history:interactive-comments:monitor
SHLVL=1
TERM=xterm-256color
UID=1001
Sorry for html email, Thanks for advice from all!
-- Clyde
--
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
