On 02/04/18 02:00 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2018-04-02 at 13:55 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Not sure what to do with that.
You may need this:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/make.git/commit/?id=193f1e81edd6b1b56b0eb0ff8aa4b41c7b4257b4
Or, latest from Git HEAD.
I started over from the t
On Mon, 2018-04-02 at 13:55 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> Not sure what to do with that.
You may need this:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/make.git/commit/?id=193f1e81edd6b1b56b0eb0ff8aa4b41c7b4257b4
Or, latest from Git HEAD.
___
Bug-make mailing lis
On 02/04/18 01:15 PM, Martin Dorey wrote:
checking whether closedir returns void... no
./configure: line 9678: PKG_PROG_PKG_CONFIG: command not found
./configure: line 9690: syntax error near unexpected token `GUILE,'
./configure: line 9690: ` PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GUILE, guile-2.0,
have_guile=yes,
On Mon, 2018-04-02 at 10:02 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> Well sure ... however before I get there I am still baffled why this
> current release code won't work on an old 32-bit intel debian server?
My understanding of the issue is that there's a compatibility problem
with the newly-released versi
I don't know why that would have only kicked off now but, in my limited
experience, autotools often works in ways that are similarly mysterious to me.
Yeah .. black magic under a full moon. :-\
Let's just do a git head pull here and give that a whirl.
Dennis
___
you went offlist .. let's not.
OK, I just was on a phone client that does not know my "real" email address,
used by the list, sorry.
no biggie .. it happens.
I meant to suggest to have a look at the output of ldd, to see
if there is anything weird there. E.g. I have (on the latest Fedora)
> checking whether closedir returns void... no
> ./configure: line 9678: PKG_PROG_PKG_CONFIG: command not found
> ./configure: line 9690: syntax error near unexpected token `GUILE,'
> ./configure: line 9690: ` PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GUILE, guile-2.0,
> have_guile=yes,'
> debi686$
Perhaps it's:
http
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:44:53AM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> On 02/04/18 10:21 AM, Dmitrii Pasechnik wrote:
> > I just wonder whether this is a relatively common case of an updated
> > make dependence, which is incompatible on the binary level (e.g. due to
> > wrong minor version number).
> > E
On 02/04/18 11:24 AM, Martin Dorey wrote:
> why this current release code won't work
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2016-06/msg5.html says
make-4.2.1 is from 2016-06-11. In the email thread I cited previously,
for what looked like the same errors, we see Paul writing, over a
> why this current release code won't work
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2016-06/msg5.html says
make-4.2.1 is from 2016-06-11. In the email thread I cited previously, for
what looked like the same errors, we see Paul writing, over a year after that
release, on 2017-11-19, "I
On 02/04/18 10:21 AM, Dmitrii Pasechnik wrote:
Hi,
I just wonder whether this is a relatively common case of an updated
make dependence, which is incompatible on the binary level (e.g. due to
wrong minor version number).
E.g. if your make has guile extension enabled, it is easy to shoot
yourse
On 01/04/18 05:29 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 16:56 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
So I could just lift that out of glibc 2.27 and drop it into the make
source tree and have a go at it. Is that the idea here ?
You could try, but I'm not optimistic that it will just work.
"ju
12 matches
Mail list logo
