Ticket #2066 - automake-1.9.6 fails gcj4.tests
In http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2066, the submitter says: automake-1.9.6, when I get to the make check step, it fails one test. Several letters back and forth with the Ralf @ automake, revealed two things: 1: gcj is never installed by the LFS process. 2: automake's gcj4.test didn't check for this. 1. Is this valid for automake-1.10? 2. Should a sentence be added to the book to point out the failure? 3. Does this rise to an issue for the 6.3 release? gcj is the gcc Java compiler. One fix is to build gcc --enable-languages=c,c++,java in Chapter 6, but I don't think this should be done in LFS for just this. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Ticket #2066 - automake-1.9.6 fails gcj4.tests
On 8/27/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2066, the submitter says: automake-1.9.6, when I get to the make check step, it fails one test. Several letters back and forth with the Ralf @ automake, revealed two things: 1: gcj is never installed by the LFS process. 2: automake's gcj4.test didn't check for this. 1. Is this valid for automake-1.10? I don't know. 2. Should a sentence be added to the book to point out the failure? If 1. is yes, then I think so. 3. Does this rise to an issue for the 6.3 release? Well, if it's one sentence to warn for a failure, then I think that should be added. gcj is the gcc Java compiler. One fix is to build gcc --enable-languages=c,c++,java in Chapter 6, but I don't think this should be done in LFS for just this. Obviously, I don't think this is a good idea for 6.3 since it's a little late in the game to be adding another compiler to the game. I also don't think it would be wise to add gcj here. For one, having a java compiler at all is something of a niche area considering the scope of the *LFS books where practically everything is C/C++/Perl/Python. Also, this would create unnecessary conflicts with BLFS, where there are two possibilities for java compilers in gcj and jdk. Just not worth the effort, IMO. The patch in automake will make the tests do the right thing for the next release. It should be noted that automake will try to use tons of different tools that we don't install in LFS, so gcj would not be exceptional. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Ticket #2066 - automake-1.9.6 fails gcj4.tests
On 8/27/07, Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/27/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2066, the submitter says: automake-1.9.6, when I get to the make check step, it fails one test. Several letters back and forth with the Ralf @ automake, revealed two things: 1: gcj is never installed by the LFS process. 2: automake's gcj4.test didn't check for this. 1. Is this valid for automake-1.10? I don't know. It seems that 1.10 does the right thing by checking for gcj and skipping the gcj4.test. The tests were clean for me. So, I think this only affects the old version. 2. Should a sentence be added to the book to point out the failure? If 1. is yes, then I think so. I think we're OK. Someone could add a note to the 6.2 errata if they want. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
