[Top] [All Lists]

Re: configure bug ?

To: elkner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: configure bug ?
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:54:22 +1100
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200202100922.g1A9MqX14612@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from elkner@xxxxxxxxxxx on Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 10:22:52AM +0100
References: <200202100922.g1A9MqX14612@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 10:22:52AM +0100, elkner@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi,


> just tried to build xfsprogs-1.3.17.src.tar.gz. For the "usual" user
> no problem, but if you want to make your own packages, which are not
> debian or redhat, you are out of luck, since your configure does
> not obey the --prefix=$proto option :(

yes, this is known - not very high on the priority list though.

> Since setting PREFIX and ROOT_PREFIX env variables did not work either,

this should work - what went wrong?

> I need to replace PKG_.*_DIR values with sed, but IMHO this is quick and
> dirty as well.

yes, PREFIX/ROOT_PREFIX is the right way.

> Furthermore I consider checking for ${prefix}/[share/]man/man1/man.1.gz
> to set HAVE_ZIPPED_MANPAGES is also very dirty because these directories
> or the man man page might not exist or not gzipped, but others.

*shrug* - works for 99% of cases, if you want more please send
a patch.

> Thus an configure option e.g. --man={gz|cat|auto} would be nice, which
> might be set for compatibility reasons per default to "auto", where the
> traditional mechanismen might be used to determine the HAVE_ZIPPED_MANPAGES
> value.

yup, that would be a good solution if you/anyone wants to implement it.

> Another bug is related to static builds. With 
> ./configure --prefix=$PROTO --enable-shared=no --enable-shared-uuid=no
> one is out of luck again, since on pass 1 it is compiled static, but than
> make builds the dynamic version and overwrites the static binary :(((
> So can you fix the:
>        --prefix option
>        gzipped man page stuff and
>        building static progs
> please?

soon as someone sends us a patch... these sorts of things just don't
make it onto the radar anymore - what we have is plenty for most
users, so we're unlikely to change it ourselves.

soounds like you've done alot pf diagnosis and understand a bit about
the build process - if you send a patch implementing these things, I
would be happy to include it.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>