sgml-common installation

Hi: Is there a reason for regenerating the autotools for sgml-common? The included configure file worked for me. If we don't regenerate, then we don't need the automake patch. --Tushar. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfro

Re: sgml-common installation

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/24/05 18:22 CST: > Hi: > > Is there a reason for regenerating the autotools for sgml-common? The > included configure file worked for me. If we don't regenerate, then we > don't need the automake patch. What are you talking about, Tush? What automake patch

Re: sgml-common installation

On 7/24/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/24/05 18:22 CST: > > Hi: > > > > Is there a reason for regenerating the autotools for sgml-common? The > > included configure file worked for me. If we don't regenerate, then we > > don't need the autom

Re: sgml-common installation

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/24/05 18:48 CST: > I used the following standard CMMI for installation and did not run > into any problems. (That is I did not run the aclocal, automake, > autoconf commands before running configure). Well, I cannot explain this then. Someone put this cha

Re: sgml-common installation

On 07/24/05 18:48:49, Tushar Teredesai wrote: I used the following standard CMMI for installation and did not run into any problems. (That is I did not run the aclocal, automake, autoconf commands before running configure). It bombs here also. However it looks like this fixes it: ln -sf /usr/

Re: sgml-common installation

David Jensen wrote these words on 07/24/05 19:00 CST: > It bombs here also. However it looks like this fixes it: > ln -sf /usr/share/automake-1.9/install-sh . > > The existing link is to /usr/share/automake/install.sh which does not > exist. My fix is not of course robust. Ideas? We could p

Re: sgml-common installation

On 07/24/05 19:00:24, David Jensen wrote: The existing link is to /usr/share/automake/install.sh which does not exist. My fix is not of course robust. Ideas? This leads to more questions. Should there be links /usr/share/automake->automake-1.9 /usr/share/aclocal->aclocal-1.9 It seems a thr

Re: sgml-common installation

On 07/24/05 19:12:06, David Jensen wrote: On 07/24/05 19:00:24, David Jensen wrote: The existing link is to /usr/share/automake/install.sh which does not exist. My fix is not of course robust. Ideas? This leads to more questions. Should there be links /usr/share/automake->automake-1.9 /us

Re: sgml-common installation

David Jensen wrote: > On 07/24/05 19:00:24, David Jensen wrote: > >> The existing link is to /usr/share/automake/install.sh which does not >> exist. My fix is not of course robust. Ideas? >> > This leads to more questions. Should there be links > /usr/share/automake->automake-1.9 > /usr/share/

Re: sgml-common installation

On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 18:22 -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote: > Hi: > > Is there a reason for regenerating the autotools for sgml-common? The > included configure file worked for me. If we don't regenerate, then we > don't need the automake patch. > > --Tushar. Does this ring any bells: http://bugs

Re: sgml-common installation

Thomas Pegg wrote these words on 07/24/05 20:58 CST: > On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 18:22 -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote: > >>Hi: >> >>Is there a reason for regenerating the autotools for sgml-common? The >>included configure file worked for me. If we don't regenerate, then we >>don't need the automake pa

Re: sgml-common installation

On 7/24/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Pegg wrote these words on 07/24/05 20:58 CST: > > On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 18:22 -0500, Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > > >>Hi: > >> > >>Is there a reason for regenerating the autotools for sgml-common? The > >>included configure file worked f

Re: sgml-common installation

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/24/05 23:01 CST: > This brings up another question that I had brought up on LFS recently > . I will go on record as being against this proposal. Seems like Tush and I have be

Re: sgml-common installation

Tushar Teredesai wrote: > This brings up another question that I had brought up on LFS recently > . I'm really not anxious to add those packages to BLFS, if for no other reason than division of labor between the LFS

Re: sgml-common installation

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/05 23:21 CST: > Also IMO, LFS should provide a fairly full ability to build other > packages and that includes flex and autotools as well as m4, tcl, make, > perl, and bison. Be careful here. Tcl is not installed in LFS. Are you suggesting that it get moved

Re: sgml-common installation

Randy McMurchy wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 07/24/05 23:21 CST: > > >>Also IMO, LFS should provide a fairly full ability to build other >>packages and that includes flex and autotools as well as m4, tcl, make, >>perl, and bison. > > > Be careful here. Tcl is not installed in LFS. >

Re: sgml-common installation

On 7/25/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Tush, > > You wrote: > > > IMO, the autotools are never required unless you are building software > > of CVS HEAD. For all released packages the generated files are > > included with the package. > > > > Also, only LFSers who maintain pac

Re: sgml-common installation

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/24/05 18:22 CST: > Hi: > > Is there a reason for regenerating the autotools for sgml-common? The > included configure file worked for me. If we don't regenerate, then we > don't need the automake patch. =

Re: sgml-common installation

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/25/05 00:30 CST: > On 7/25/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Bash only recently linked to readline. It doesn't need to. This is >>totally optional, and wouldn't to this day, if Zack wasn't such a >>pussy about it when the discussion was asked.

Re: sgml-common installation

On 7/25/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/25/05 00:30 CST: > > On 7/25/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Bash only recently linked to readline. It doesn't need to. This is > >>totally optional, and wouldn't to this day, if Za

Re: sgml-common installation

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 07/25/05 01:37 CST: > My aplogies for that Randy. As I explained in my private e-mail (to > Randy), I was under the impression I was replying to a technical > discussion and the comment about Zack did not generate any alarm > bells, especially since there was

Re: sgml-common installation

Bruce Dubbs wrote: Tushar Teredesai wrote: This brings up another question that I had brought up on LFS recently . I'm really not anxious to add those packages to BLFS, if for no other reason than division of la

Re: sgml-common installation

Andrew Benton wrote: That's not a very good reason for an editorial decision. If you're short staffed you could ask for help on the mailing lists. Does that mean you're volunteering? :) -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq

Re: sgml-common installation

Randy McMurchy wrote: There was no similar comment. Don't try and defend yourself. You violated trust. End of story. Um... yes there was: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2005-July/010499.html I can appreciate your being upset at what you perceive as a violation of trust. On t

Re: sgml-common installation

On 7/26/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Randy McMurchy wrote: > > > > There was no similar comment. Don't try and defend yourself. You > > violated trust. End of story. > > Um... yes there was: > > http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2005-July/010499.html > > I can ap