On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:58:02 +0000 Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote:
> Finally I'm building on 7.1, mostly using the packages I used for > 7.0 - at this early stage (just got icewm built, now I'm in for the > long haul to firefox) the only real change is to use Python-2.7.3rc1 > (updating an installed Python is unknown territory for me, so I'll > use the rc in this new build). So, nothing else really changed - I > thought. > > But three times I've had build failures. None of these directly > affect the book, but all had similar symptons. The packages were > mesa-demos (I had been using that after the old patch didn't apply > to newer Mesa - current patch in the book for MesaLib is fine so I > went back to that), xclock-1.0.4 (I don't build all of X, didn't > notice the book had started to use a newer version), and icewm-1.3.7. > > In each case, ld reported an undefined reference, and told me which > library was needed, then said it couldn't read it. > > e.g. in xclock-1.0.4 (the lines from ld itself have been reformatted > by pasting) - > > /usr/bin/ld: Clock.o: undefined reference to symbol > 'XmuCvtStringToBackingStore' > /usr/bin/ld: note: 'XmuCvtStringToBackingStore' is defined in DSO > /usr/lib64/libXmu.so.6 so try adding it to the linker command line > /usr/lib64/libXmu.so.6: could not read symbols: Invalid operation > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > make[1]: *** [xclock] Error 1 > > What I don't understand is why this suddenly shows up. No changes > in my xorg versions, so no likely changes in which headers get > included. AFAICS the only glibc change since 7.0 is that we now > always install the rpc headers, we're using 2.14.1 both times, but > I had to install them anyway for nfs. So, a change in gcc-4.6.2 or > binutils-2.22 ? > > For icewm, google in lynx was adequate (result!) - debian had this > problem in March 2011 (almost a year ago) and fixed it by adding > ' -lfontconfig' to the end of the 'LIB = ' line of src/Makefile.in > (they patch, I managed a sed - I hope Andy's pleased ;) Way to go Ken! > - they also > had a similar problem with fvwm, but only on their amd64 build farm, > not on the package maintainer's machine. > > March 2011 appears to be before current gcc and binutils, even if > debian were using prerelease or hjl binutils. So, I'm baffled by > what has triggered this spate of build failures. Any ideas ? I think it was binutils-2.22 that broke it. Several packages now need LIBS="-lX11 -lpthread" and such like and for me it happened when I started using a pre release version, binutils-2.22.51. I've started adding them to the pages in the book that need them (eg Pidgin needs LIBS="-lm -lX11", Rox needs LIBS="-lm -ldl") but no doubt there are more that need fixed. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
