On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 06:40:26AM -0800, Bill Randle said:
> On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 13:43 +0100, aCaB wrote:
> > Bill Randle wrote:
> > > My workaround was to add the following to the spec file:
> > > # hack to prevent libtoolize from being called. Since we don't patch
> > > # the configure
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 13:43 +0100, aCaB wrote:
> Bill Randle wrote:
> > My workaround was to add the following to the spec file:
> > # hack to prevent libtoolize from being called. Since we don't patch
> > # the configure.in file, there's no need to re-configure.
> > mv configure.in con
Bill Randle wrote:
> My workaround was to add the following to the spec file:
> # hack to prevent libtoolize from being called. Since we don't patch
> # the configure.in file, there's no need to re-configure.
> mv configure.in configure.in.nu
Hi all,
Just a FYI, you can call libtoolize
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 15:18 -0600, Chris wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 November 2008 3:09 pm, Nathan Brink wrote:
> > Chris wrote:
> > > Is there a different version of libtool required to build 94.1 than there
> > > was to build .94?
> >
> > I had this problem too. However, I think I only had it when I r
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 3:09 pm, Nathan Brink wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > Is there a different version of libtool required to build 94.1 than there
> > was to build .94?
>
> I had this problem too. However, I think I only had it when I ran
> libtoolize and/or ran autoreconf. I think that ClamAV p
Chris wrote:
> Is there a different version of libtool required to build 94.1 than there was
> to build .94?
I had this problem too. However, I think I only had it when I ran libtoolize
and/or ran autoreconf. I think that ClamAV people are assuming you won't run
libtoolize and autoreconf when bu