Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 19 35 36 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 60 61 62 64 failed [GNU/Linux PowerPC]

2008-03-06 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
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

Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 19 35 36 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 60 61 62 64 failed [GNU/Linux PowerPC]

2008-03-06 Thread Peter O'Gorman
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

Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 19 35 36 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 60 61 62 64 failed [GNU/Linux PowerPC]

2008-03-06 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
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,

Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 19 35 36 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 60 61 62 64 failed [GNU/Linux PowerPC]

2008-03-06 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: But that should not be Libtool's decision, but the package's. Libtool already supports a syntax by which the package can specify the languages that it wants to configure for. I agree that this may not be expected to cause hard-failure if a

Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 19 35 36 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 60 61 62 64 failed [GNU/Linux PowerPC]

2008-03-06 Thread Peter O'Gorman
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

Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 19 35 36 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 60 61 62 64 failed [GNU/Linux PowerPC]

2008-03-06 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
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,

Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 19 35 36 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 60 61 62 64 failed [GNU/Linux PowerPC]

2008-03-06 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Bob, 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 user is likely to try 'make' and then find that libtool

Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 19 35 36 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 60 61 62 64 failed [GNU/Linux PowerPC]

2008-03-06 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* 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