[lfs-support] LFS 7.9 6.66. Texinfo-6.1 configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --disable-static

Support aitechsolutions at gmail.com
Sun May 1 19:53:13 PDT 2016


Thank you so much ken!

Your test to run the configure with and without the --disable-static switch
was great and verified the validity of that switch. Brilliant. I will add
that
to my toolbelt !!

Also, I went back and checked. The only libs created after the make install
of texinfo were:

usr/lib/texinfo/XSParagraph.so
/usr/lib/texinfo/XSParagraph.la

I did suspect that possibly the switch might be used by a called subscript
but was not sure. Yep, It makes a difference and needs to be used.

I guess what puzzled/concerned me more is that the warning was not
in the online build logs. I really thought I might have had something wrong.

Now I know that a switch might be used in a subtask even if it is not
recognized in the parent :)

I'm a bit smarter because of you :D
Thank you and all you do!

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 06:48:52PM -0400, Support wrote:
> > LFS 7.9  In Chapter 6.66.1 the configure of texinfo gets a warning that
> the
> > option flag --disable-static is unrecognized.
> >
> > configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --disable-static
> >
> > However the book says to use that particular option flag.
> >
> > ./configure --prefix=/usr --disable-static
> > >
> >
> > This warning does not show in the online build logs for texinfo at:
> >     http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/...31-texinfo-6.1
> > <
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/7.9/i7-5820K/logs/131-texinfo-6.1
> >
> >
> > Please note: For me texinfo did build successfully so no actual issue.
> >
> > Also, in case it is relevant, I am building on a debian 7.9 host with a
> 32
> > bit Pentium CPU.
> > Build target is 32 bit.
> >
> > I'm just curious as to why I need to use this option flag if it is
> > unrecognized?
> > Why does this warning not show in the online build logs?
> >
>
> I have to admit that I seem to have missed that switch in my own
> builds.  It was added in r11032 during the package freeze, because
> of ticket #3896.
>
> Looking at the ticket, the static library is in a directory in
> /usr/lib.  My own scripts assume that only static libs in /usr/lib
> itself are likely to be linked by packages, but perhaps I'm being
> lax there.  The details in that ticket certainly look valid.
>
> Hmm, yes I get the same message at the end of configure, and logging
> all the output I also got it before the configure started.  But
> within the configure log, when I did not have that switch I got:
>
> checking if cc static flag -static works... yes
> checking if cc supports -c -o file.o... yes
> checking if cc supports -c -o file.o... (cached) yes
> checking whether the cc linker (/usr/bin/ld -m elf_x86_64) supports
> shared libraries... yes
> checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no
> checking dynamic linker characteristics... GNU/Linux ld.so
> checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate
> checking whether stripping libraries is possible... yes
> checking if libtool supports shared libraries... yes
> checking whether to build shared libraries... yes
> checking whether to build static libraries... yes
>                                              ^^^^
>
> but with it I get
>
> checking if cc static flag -static works... yes
> checking if cc supports -c -o file.o... yes
> checking if cc supports -c -o file.o... (cached) yes
> checking whether the cc linker (/usr/bin/ld -m elf_x86_64) supports
> shared libraries... yes
> checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no
> checking dynamic linker characteristics... GNU/Linux ld.so
> checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate
> checking whether stripping libraries is possible... yes
> checking if libtool supports shared libraries... yes
> checking whether to build shared libraries... yes
> checking whether to build static libraries... no
>                                              ^^^
>
> So it is indeed recognised by the configure script in one of the
> subdirectories, and doing a DESTDIR install confirms that it works.
>
> Summary: because it was a late change, and that error message is
> totally unexpected, it does not show in the build logs.  But it
> works fine despite the message.  Autotools can be fun at times.
>
> As to why nobody else has noticed this until now, your guess is as
> good as mine.
>
> ĸen
> --
> This email was written using 100% recycled letters.
> --
> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>
> Do not top post on this list.
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/attachments/20160501/69a146eb/attachment.html>


More information about the lfs-support mailing list