Is it binutils-2.13.90.0.4 or is it me?

Is it binutils-2.13.90.0.4 or is it me?

[Erik Christiansen]

   Following the mini-howto on penguinppc.org, I started with compilation
of binutils.

   ./configure --target=powerpc-linux finished in a happy frame of mind,
but make spat the dummy, flagging errors on some rather elusive
scripting:

cd .. \
  && CONFIG_FILES=po/Makefile.in:po/Make-in \
     CONFIG_HEADERS= /bin/sh ./config.status
creating po/Makefile.in
make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/binutils-2.13.90.0.4/bfd/po'
make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/binutils-2.13.90.0.4/bfd/po'
file=./`echo sv | sed 's,.*/,,'`.gmo \
  && rm -f $file && PATH=../src:$PATH no -o $file sv.po
/bin/sh: no: command not found
make[3]: *** [sv.gmo] Error 127
make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/binutils-2.13.90.0.4/bfd/po'
make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/binutils-2.13.90.0.4/bfd'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive-am] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/binutils-2.13.90.0.4/bfd'
make: *** [all-bfd] Error 2

   Now, grep -r 'no -o' /usr/local/src/binutils-2.13.90.0.4/bfd/po draws
a blank, so before looking further for where it could be fixed, I
thought I'd ask whether going back a version or two might provide
smoother sailing?

Regards,
Erik

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Is it binutils-2.13.90.0.4 or is it me?

[Erik Christiansen]

binutils from: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/.
compiling with gcc 2.95.4 on debian woody.

   Oh - Oh, looks like ./config/acinclude.m4 is generating dud makefiles
in the versions: binutils-2.11.93.0.2, binutils-2.12.90.0.9, and
binutils-2.13.90.0.4. (The m4 macro substitution is broken in the same
way in each version.)

   I'll send off a bug report, but would meanwhile be grateful if some
wise soul has any hints on sourcing working ingredients for an intel/ppc
cross compiler.

Regards,
Erik


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Is it binutils-2.13.90.0.4 or is it me?

[Hollis Blanchard]

On Tuesday 01 October 2002 20:03, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>    Following the mini-howto on penguinppc.org, I started with compilation
> of binutils.
>
>    ./configure --target=powerpc-linux finished in a happy frame of mind,
> but make spat the dummy, flagging errors on some rather elusive
> scripting:
>
> cd .. \
>   && CONFIG_FILES=po/Makefile.in:po/Make-in \
>      CONFIG_HEADERS= /bin/sh ./config.status
> creating po/Makefile.in
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/binutils-2.13.90.0.4/bfd/po'
> make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/binutils-2.13.90.0.4/bfd/po'
> file=./`echo sv | sed 's,.*/,,'`.gmo \
>   && rm -f $file && PATH=../src:$PATH no -o $file sv.po
> /bin/sh: no: command not found
>
>    Now, grep -r 'no -o' /usr/local/src/binutils-2.13.90.0.4/bfd/po draws
> a blank, so before looking further for where it could be fixed, I
> thought I'd ask whether going back a version or two might provide
> smoother sailing?

This typically means someone did their autoconf wrong. You're missing some
feature ("Checking for /bin/foo... no") but the script doesn't actually check
for an error, and uses 'no' where it obviously shouldn't.

It is a bug; you should submit a bug report once you figure out what app it
is.

-Hollis

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Is it binutils-2.13.90.0.4 or is it me?

[Milton D. Miller II]

A frequent missing flag is --disable-nls

milton

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/