OK, I thought we had fixed this thing, but when I tried (as root) to
install a console game black_jack-0.1.tar.gz I got the following:
# ./configure
loading cache ./config.cache
checking for a BSD compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking whether make sets ${MAKE}... yes
checking for working aclocal... found
checking for working autoconf... found
checking for working automake... found
checking for working autoheader... found
checking for working makeinfo... found
checking for gcc... gcc
checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... yes
checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) is a cross-compiler... no
checking whether we are using GNU C... yes
checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes
checking for c++... no
checking for g++... g++
checking whether the C++ compiler (g++ ) works... no
configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C++ compiler cannot create
executables.
I suppose it's a source tarball -- I don't recall :-|
I'll be sure to make that distinction in the future.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000807 15:45]:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Richard Spencer wrote:
> > Thanks tons! I didn't think to try the -U upgrade option.
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000807 05:10]:
> > <snip>
> > > Which tarball is that? There are source tarballs and i386.bin
> tarballs.
> > I suppose gcc-2.95.2.tar.gz would be the source, wouldn't it?
> > The i386 binary tarball would be called gcc-2.95.2.i386.tar.gz,
> > wouldn't it? I forgot to look for a distinction when I was trying
> > to find the rpm for gcc at gnu.org -- they don't seem to have
> > binaries in rpm AFAIK. It's usually not too easy to find what you're
> > looking for at Redhat's site, and if you do, it's usually too busy.
> That is why there are mirrors. Other sites carry rpm's, but since
> anybody who likes can make an rpm of anything (I have), there is no
> guarantee there is not a good-stuff-2.3-4.i386.rpm out there that is
> really a trojan horse. I think Mandrake, SuSE, ... I forget who all
> else use rpm's.
> > This is what happened when I did:
> > # rpm -U gcc-2.95.1-3.i386.rpm
> > cannot remove /usr/i386-redhat-linux/lib directory not empty
> > cannot remove /usr/i386-redhat-linux directory not empty
> > I suppose that the install went smoothly; those 'error' messages
> > are really just little 'burps,' aren't they?
> Right. Installing egcs will create those dirs if they don't exist, so
> the upgrade tries to remove them. It's no harm that it can't.
> > By the way, when I tell the list what dist I'm running,
> > is it helpful to know it's Redhat 6.0, since that's what
> > I initially installed? I've upgraded many packages, so
> > maybe it's closer to 6.1 or 6.2 at this point. For example,
> > I'm now running gcc-2.95.1-3, thanks to you, Lawson :-)
> The glibc version is usually the most significant. gcc is a big
> improvement from egcs, though. I'd call it RH 6.0.7 :-).
> > Running Redhat 6.0 with some upgraded packages.
--
Running Redhat 6.0 with some upgraded packages.
Richard Spencer "Why Not" is a slogan
Sao Paulo, Brazil for an interesting life.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mason Cooley
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
