halg at cox.net
Sat Feb 19 11:29:46 EST 2005
On Saturday 19 February 2005 08:01, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Saturday 19 February 2005 7:53 am, Hal Goldfarb wrote:
> > autoupdate
> ?? autoupdate? Shouldn't that be ./autogen.sh ?
Ah! OK. Again, I am completely new at using the GNU build tools. But don't
worry, I'm a fairly quick study.
> Read the README.cvs and use the sample autogen command from there.
Funny, I thought that's where I got the idea to run autoupdate. Maybe I was
looking at a different set of source code (tarball maybe?). I feel like no
matter how much I read and poke around, there is always something else to
know. Maybe there are vestiges of older ways of building the tools; for
example, an on-line tutorial of autoconf and automake I was reading could be
a few years old. Some of these may be outdated.
I know, I could go out and buy the books on the auto* tools. But I am really
tight on money right now. And books get out of date pretty quick, too,
these days ...
> > One more thing: I know that you have to install the *-devel packages for
> > everything to work correctly. But I also had problems with doing that.
> I've got a list of dependencies required to build GnuCash from CVS on my
> own site - Debian based list.
Thanks, I will look at that. Mandrake may have slightly different
requirements. For one thing, a lot of Redhat stuff won't build on mandrake
because Redhat SRPM's usually expect static libraries to link with. Mandrake
has a tendency to not include those in their regular RPM's in my experience.
But that may also have to do with the packager, too.
One notable issue I ran into was that configure was asking me for -libgr.
When I went looking for it in rpmseek, pbone, rpmfind, and others, the search
would come up listing libnetpbm. From what I could tell, it looks like they
fulfill similar functionality, but I wasn't sure if I was getting partial or
full support for the graphics files.
> > For instance, when I was running configure from the tarball, not doing my
> > own autoconf, it would complain that it could not find -libgal, but it is
> > in fact installed (libgal23, in fact). Go ahead, fill me in.
> libgal is not the devel package, that's libgal-dev! Install the devel
Question: In general, when I am building from scratch from sourceforge and
project CVS repositories, should I always assume they mean the *devel*
version of the libraries? It seems like sometimes GNU build tools indicate
the exact library/package name required, and sometimes not. I could be wrong
about this since I have only been doing this for a couple of days or so.
However, in the past when I have built, or tried to build, other packages it
seems like they were specific for the most part.
Thank you for your prompt response.
More information about the gnucash-devel