Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-amd64 (470 mails)

< Previous Next >
General 64-bit compilation madness
  • From: Tom Emerson <osnutalt4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:48:06 +0000 (UTC)
  • Message-id: <200411271057.19053.osnutalt4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Well, I'm done banging my head against the wall, so now I'll ask: what needs
to be done "in general" to make a source package that wasn't necessarily set
for "64-bit" to actually compile on my new machine?

The package in particular (though it could be any one of thousands) is
"Gambas", and the road block I'm hitting is

make[6]: Entering directory
`/home/tom/src/gambas-0.99.RC3/src/lib/qt/kde/html'
/bin/sh ../../../../../libtool --mode=link g++ -g -O2 -pipe -Wall
-fno-exceptions -g -Os -fno-omit-frame-pointer -o lib.gb.qt.kde.html.la
-rpath /opt/gambas/lib/gambas -no-undefined main.lo moc_main.lo
moc_CWebBrowser.lo CWebBrowser.lo -L/usr/lib64/ -lgcc_s -lstdc++ -lpthread
-lqt-mt -L/opt/kde3/lib/ -lkdecore -lkdeui -lDCOP -lkio -lkhtml -lkjs
grep: /usr/lib/libart_lgpl_2.la: No such file or directory
sed: can't read /usr/lib/libart_lgpl_2.la: No such file or directory
Searching -L/usr/lib/qt3/lib
-L/usr/X11R6/lib /usr/lib/libstdc++.la /opt/kde3/lib/libDCOP.la
-L/opt/kde3/lib -L/usr/lib -L/usr/lib/ -L/usr/X11R6/lib/ -lresolv
-lutil /usr/lib/libart_lgpl_2.la /opt/kde3/lib/libkdefx.la /usr/lib/qt3/lib/libqt-mt.la
-lfreetype -lfontconfig -lXi -lXrandr -lXcursor -lXinerama
-lXft /usr/lib/libfontconfig.la /usr/lib/libexpat.la /usr/lib/libfreetype.la
-ldl -lpng -lz -lXext -lX11 -lSM -lICE -lpthread
-lXrender /usr/lib/libidn.la /usr/lib/libstdc++.la
libtool: link: `/usr/lib/libart_lgpl_2.la' is not a valid libtool archive -3
make[6]: *** [lib.gb.qt.kde.html.la] Error 1


[notes: the output of "searching: <library names>" and the "-3" on "not a
valid libtool archive" are additional displays I've added to "libtool" to
figure out how/why/WHERE this error was originating; furthermore it appears
"libtool"]

Now, the particular file it is complaining about is
"/usr/lib/libart_lgpl_2.la", and within the /usr/lib directory I do indeed
have "...lgpl_2.so.2", but not the ".la" file; In /usr/lib64, however, I do
have the .la file.

Now, I realize that there is a bit of disparity between 32 and 64 bit
libraries, but I specifically went and got out my install DVD and explicitly
added anything that "provides libart_lgpl" [seems these are gnome libraries]
INCLUDING the "32 bit" versions -- still no luck in getting everything to
"play nice". Of course, since I'm compiling this whole thing in the first
place, I'd imagine it *SHOULD* be looking in /usr/lib64 to begin with -- what
is really causing major hair loss is the fact that I cannot figure out what
is causing the /usr/lib version to appear in the dependency list in the first
place.


< Previous Next >
Follow Ups