Il giorno Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:16:34 -0600 Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> Hm, could it be that the configure file of your package is simply wrong and
> overreacts? AFAIK all Debian libraries are stripped, so your objdump and nm
> test would yield the same for the zlib, png, jpeg, ... what-have-you
> libraries too.
Ooops, you're right, sorry. (I didn't check that test over other libraries too)
> Here is a really old, really small test I have locally:
>
> ...
>
> Builds fine agains libgsl*. Plus, the gsl-bin examples also run.
Well, the snip you posted doesn't use gsl_multifit_fdfsolver_iterate.
After 'apt-get source gsl', I've found that this function is used in
multifit/test.c. I've compiled it on my system, and it runs. Weird :s
> So looks like your configure is too harsh and gsl is fine. Can we close this?
The configure is not that harsh:
valid_gsl=yes
AC_CHECK_LIB(gslcblas,main,LIBS="-lgslcblas $LIBS"; BASELIBS="-lgslcblas
$BASELIBS")
AC_CHECK_LIB(gsl,gsl_multifit_fdfsolver_iterate,BASELIBS="-lgsl
$BASELIBS",valid_gsl=no)
AC_CHECK_HEADER(gsl/gsl_multifit_nlin.h,,valid_gsl=no)
if test "x$valid_gsl" = "xno"
then
AC_MSG_ERROR(Please install ...)
fi
Have you got any idea why configure fails? Those lines seem fine to me.
I'm gonna google for it.
Thank you for the reply,
David
--
. ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
