OK, it turns out it was a just a matter of missing the libmagic-dev package. The source of confusion on my part was the fact that there's a "magic.h" in /usr/include/linux, but you need the one in /usr/include to build the product, and that comes from the libmagic-dev package.
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Phillip Moore <[email protected]>wrote: > EFS should have been called NOS, for "Network Operating System", because > that's really a better description of what it is. Then people would just > confuse us with an energy drink.... > > We're also finding ourselves doing the same thing a lot of the Linux > distributions do: patching, and maintaining the patches, for various > products in order to get them to install into our "NOS". > > Over the past several years, I've found an increasing number of cases where > the official public release of source code of a given OSS product will NOT > build cleanly on a given OS, and the solution is found in a patch which is > bundled with the distribution's own packaging mechanism, but NOT rolled back > into the canonical, public release of the product. > > Preliminary results of my current investigation show this to be the case > for File::LibMagic on Debian. You can NOT build the latest release (0.96) > downloaded from CPAN. It either fails to find the magic.h header file, or > if you help it (which requires installing by hand, not via cpanp) then it > simply fails to compile (I have all the gory details, if anyone cares). > > The solution appears to exist, but local to the debian source > distributions. For example, a similar problem was reported in the Debian > community, and fixed in the Debian source distributions: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=577288 > > But there's NOTHING about this bug in the CPAN RT for that module. > > This creates a really obnoxious problem for us. I would like to use > File::LibMagic in efs-core and efs-deploy, but it will introduce a manual > step to the bootstrap process. On Debian (and presumably Ubuntu, too) the > module doesn't even build at all, so we have some patching of our own to do > (or find -- this particular bug may have been fixed but I haven't found it > yet). > > For now, I'm going to leave everything broken on Debian, Ubuntu and > FreeBSD, until someone other than me cares about running EFS on those > platforms, and then they can step up to the plate and give me some help. > > It has annoyed me for over 10 years that each Linux distribution is, in > practice, a collection of FORKS of many of the products they are built with. > Red Hat was really bad about this for years, and wasn't getting their > patches included in the official source releases, but I think every > distribution does this now. This makes it very, very hard for us to build > what amounts to yet another operating system distribution (hence my > suggestion that EFS is really a NOS). >
_______________________________________________ EFS-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.openefs.org/mailman/listinfo/efs-dev
