DBI backend configure failure

[Phil Longstaff]

OK

Phil

Mark Johnson wrote:
> Phil Longstaff wrote:
>> Mark Johnson wrote:
>>  
>>> Configure fails as follows:
>>>  
>>> checking for libgoffice-0.5 >= 0.5.1... no
>>> checking for libgoffice-0.4 >= 0.4.0... no
>>> checking for libgoffice-0.3 >= 0.3.0... no
>>> checking for libgoffice-1 >= 0.0.4... no
>>> configure: error: Cannot find libgoffice.
>>>
>>> I have libgoffice-0.6 installed.  The configure.in in trunk checks
>>> for this version.  However, the one in gda-dev2 is behind, and stops
>>> checking at version 0.5.
>>>
>>> Phil, please update the goffice check in gda-dev2/configure.in.
>>>     
>>
>> The gda-dev2 branch has:
>>     goffice=0
>>     goffice_with_cairo=0
>>     have_goffice_0_5=0
>>     PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-0.6 >= 0.6.0, [goffice=1], [
>>       PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-0.5 >= 0.5.1, [goffice=1],
>> [goffice=0])
>>     ])
>>     if test x$goffice = x1
>>     then
>>       AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GOFFICE_0_5,1,[System has goffice 0.5.1 or better])
>>       AC_DEFINE(GOFFICE_WITH_CAIRO,1,[GOffice has been built with cairo
>> support])
>>       have_goffice_0_5=1
>>       goffice_with_cairo=1
>>     else
>>       PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-0.4 >= 0.4.0, [goffice=1], [
>>         PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-0.3 >= 0.3.0,
>> [goffice=1], [
>>           PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-1 >= 0.0.4,
>> [goffice=1], [
>>             AC_MSG_ERROR([Cannot find libgoffice.])
>>           ])
>>         ])
>>       ])
>>     fi
>>     AS_SCRUB_INCLUDE(GOFFICE_CFLAGS)
>>     AC_SUBST(GOFFICE_CFLAGS)
>>     AC_SUBST(GOFFICE_LIBS)
>>
>> which is the same as what trunk has.  I don't understand why you're
>> having this problem.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>   
> Now, I don't either.  Last night, after I sent the message, I removed
> the gda-dev2 directory, did a brand new checkout, and patched
> configure.in to compile it.  I thought I still had an old copy.  Today,
> when I remove configure.in, and do svn update, I get exactly what is above.
> 
> Since I now have the correct copy, and can't explain quite what I did
> wrong, there simply is no more issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark
> 
>