On 6 Mar 2008, at 02:05, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
That sounds a little harsh. I think that the LZMA complaint from
automake may be because libtool requests a lzma package and it
requires
the very latest automake to do so.
Where does Libtool 2.2
Hello Nelson, Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:18:42AM CET:
Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote:
libtool: compile: gcj -g -O2 -c A3.java
gcj: libgcj.spec: No such file or directory
Your gcj and automake are broken. Do you have a sane toolchain on any of
your systems?
Hello Nelson,
* Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 02:18:18AM CET:
# -*- compilation -*-
35. am-subdir.at:33: testing ...
libtoolize: putting auxiliary files in `.'.
libtoolize: copying file `./ltmain.sh'
libtoolize: putting macros in `m4'.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Then, let's avoid us getting blame for broken gcj installations.
OK to apply this patch to avoid the gcj test when a compile would fail?
Or do you feel tests for working compilers should be done in configure
already?
My feeling is that the sooner a
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Nelson, Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:18:42AM CET:
Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote:
libtool: compile: gcj -g -O2 -c A3.java
gcj: libgcj.spec: No such file or directory
Your gcj and automake are broken. Do you have a sane toolchain on
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
I think the test for a working GCJ should be in libtool, and unset GCJ,
avoid adding the tag etc.if it is found to be nonfunctional. We would
have to issue a warning during configure or something. Does not look to
be quite as easy as this patch though,
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:43:15PM CET:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
I think the test for a working GCJ should be in libtool, and unset GCJ,
avoid adding the tag etc.if it is found to be nonfunctional. We would
have to issue a warning during configure or
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:43:15PM CET:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
I think the test for a working GCJ should be in libtool, and unset GCJ,
avoid adding the tag etc.if it is found to be nonfunctional. We would
have to issue a
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:57:56PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I'm considering doing that (the stop-gap measure).
Your call.
I've applied that now.
Yes, and I can conceive just as well a libtool-using package which may
optionally use a Java compiler, and thus
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
What would be ideal is to check that the compiler exists, is executable,
works (an possibly, when not cross-compiling, test that trivial code
that is compiled with the compiler runs) but not cause an error if the
compiler is broken or does not exist,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:41:47PM CET:
On 6 Mar 2008, at 15:03, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
There needs to be a way to output any warnings at the tail end of
configure so that at least someone is more likely to see them.
Without adequate notification to the user, the
[[libtool-patches removed from Cc:]]
On 6 Mar 2008, at 16:52, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:41:47PM CET:
On 6 Mar 2008, at 15:03, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
There needs to be a way to output any warnings at the tail end of
configure so that at least
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
That's not a workable solution. The normal configure output and
config.log were invented to do what Bob wants. Libtool cannot in
general know what is important for the package, IMVHO. So if the
functioning of a compiler is important, then configure
Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote:
libtool: compile: gcj -g -O2 -c A3.java
gcj: libgcj.spec: No such file or directory
automake:
automake: ## Internal Error ##
automake:
automake: Unknown ?token? `LZMA' (neg = 0)
automake: Please contact [EMAIL
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Your gcj and automake are broken. Do you have a sane toolchain on any of
your systems?
We should also keep in mind that autoconf apparently only checks the C
compiler to verify that it is sane. There don't seem to be any good
sanity checks for the
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Your gcj and automake are broken. Do you have a sane toolchain on any of
your systems?
That sounds a little harsh. I think that the LZMA complaint from
automake may be because libtool requests a lzma package and it requires
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:28:10AM CET:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Your gcj and automake are broken. Do you have a sane toolchain on any of
your systems?
That sounds a little harsh. I think that the LZMA complaint from
automake may be because
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
You are right, of course, it was too harsh. I was simply overwhelmed
when I looked at the volume of mail on the bug-libtool list.
You have no reason to be overwelmed. Just divide the volume of mail
regarding 2.X by the four years it took to produce
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
That sounds a little harsh. I think that the LZMA complaint from
automake may be because libtool requests a lzma package and it requires
the very latest automake to do so.
Where does Libtool 2.2 require lzma? That would be a serious bug,
requiring
19 matches
Mail list logo
