Better, but...
GEN lib/wctype.h
GEN src/coreutils.h
GEN src/version.c
GEN src/version.h
make all-recursive
Making all in po
Target "all" is up to date.
Making all in .
CC lib/copy-acl.o
CC lib/set-acl.o
CC lib/acl-errno-valid.o
CC
I did not run config.status - this dog missed that part of the trick!
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 08:09 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> > root@x065:[/data/prj/gnu/coreutils/coreutils-8.23]make V=1
> > rm -f src/coreutils.h
> > for prog in ; do
On 06/05/2015 08:09 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> root@x065:[/data/prj/gnu/coreutils/coreutils-8.23]make V=1
> rm -f src/coreutils.h
> for prog in ; do prog=`basename
That's missing the changes; are you sure you reran both 'automake' and
'config.status' to regenerate your Makef
Michael Felt wrote:
root@x065:[/data/prj/gnu/coreutils/coreutils-8.23]make V=1
rm -f src/coreutils.h
for prog in ; do prog=`basenam
Yes, it looks like something went wrong in your build process and you're using a
Makefile.in generated from unpatched sources. I just n
root@x065:[/data/prj/gnu/coreutils/coreutils-8.23]make V=1
rm -f src/coreutils.h
for prog in ; do prog=`basename
$prog`; main=`echo $prog | tr '['
'_'`; echo "SINGLE_BINARY_PROGRAM(\"$prog\",
$main)"; done | sort > src
Michael Felt wrote:
GEN src/coreutils.h
/bin/sh: 0403-057 Syntax error at line 1 : `;' is not expected.
make: 1254-004 The error code from the last command is 2.
This looks like the coreutils patch wasn't properly propagated somehow. What's
the output of 'make V=1'?
As I said before - I do not really know the ins and outs of autoconf and
automake - so I shall only summarize my steps:
On my "download" server... (/data/prj is an NFS mount shared by all servers)
michael@x071:[/data/prj/gnu/coreutils]xz -dc *23*xz | tar xf -
michael@x071:[/data/prj/gnu/coreutils
I think I still have automake 1.14 lying around, but would be nice if
automake-1.15 would have just accepted the patch :)
*Most important - the patch seems to be working!* At least I got farther...
On my "bare system" - initially NO extras installed to find 'hard', i.e.,
real dependencies.
root@
an incremental build - isn't that what applying a patch to an official
release is. A fresh checkout is 'all patches' and difficult to replicate,
once another patch is applied.
Or I am just too old of a dog and having trouble learning this new trick :)
As far as above is concerned - I had automake
After rerunning ./configure --prefix=/opt I still stop at:
GEN src/coreutils.h
/bin/sh: 0403-057 Syntax error at line 1 : `;' is not expected.
make: 1254-004 The error code from the last command is 2.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> I think I still have automake 1
FYI: AIX - not Solaris - but "old-school UNIX" in both cases.
And, yes - it is /bin/sh - which is the 'Bourne shell behavior" iirc,
rather than ksh behavior, but the program is the default AIX (not solaris)
ksh (see inode #)
26 -r-xr-xr-x 15 bin bin 1457 May 14 2012 hash
58 -r-xr-sr
Actually, looking at this more closely - before make did not do anything in
./lib initially - now it starts there, and it still comes to a halt with
GEN src/coreutils.h
Funny how the lib stuff can be generated without src/coreutils.h - is that
by design? I shall go back two steps (remove all, unpa
My "fear" is that autoconf has introduced this "catch-all" as I have been
running into it more frequently of late (first time was last November when
I took my first attempt at packaging gcc.)
I shall look at the patch and let you know - however, regardless of whether
it works or not - is this some
This is reassuring. Thank you for the reply.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 04:45 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
>
> [we tend to avoid top-posting on technical lists, as it makes it harder
> to follow the flow of the message]
>
> > My "fear" is that autoconf has intro
On 06/05/2015 05:13 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> I think I still have automake 1.14 lying around, but would be nice if
> automake-1.15 would have just accepted the patch :)
>
> *Most important - the patch seems to be working!* At least I got farther...
>
> On my "bare system" - initially NO extras i
On 06/05/2015 04:45 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
[we tend to avoid top-posting on technical lists, as it makes it harder
to follow the flow of the message]
> My "fear" is that autoconf has introduced this "catch-all" as I have been
> running into it more frequently of late (first time was last Novembe
16 matches
Mail list logo
