[Slackbuilds-users] Problems with g-wrap-1.9.6

[Robby Workman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Robby Workman wrote:
> 
>> I'm curious as to why you need/want to link anything in usr/local, because
>> /if you're working with packaged software, then everything should be in
>> /usr.
> 
> Robby,
> 
>    From g-wrap.SlackBuild:
> 
> CFLAGS="$SLKCFLAGS" \
> CXXFLAGS="$SLKCFLAGS" \
> ./configure \
>    --prefix=/usr \
>    --sysconfdir=/etc \
>    --localstatedir=/var
> 
>    When I built it manually, I used the same prefix, yet 'locate g-wrap'
> finds it in:
> 
> /usr/local/bin/g-wrap-config
> /usr/local/share/guile/site/g-wrap
> /usr/local/include/g-wrap
> 


You have apparently installed it to /usr/local at some point in the
past.  Until/unless you remove those remnants in /usr/local, you will
continue to see problems like this.  This is why it's not recommended
to upgrade software which is included in the official package set
(unless of course you install it to prefix=/usr and package it for
easier management later) [1]


>    Part of the problem is that here, glib.h is in /usr/include/glib-2.0/ and
> configure (or make) is looking in /usr/include/glib/ which does not exist.
> 
>    So, I modified configure.ac to reflect that directory name and ran
> autoconf. Then re-ran g-wrap.SlackBuild. Perhaps I also need to export an
> addendum to PKG_CONFIG_PATH because now make still fails in finding glib.h.
> What a PITA.


That shouldn't be necessary.  Check the glib* files in
/usr/lib/pkgconfig/ and see what they say.  If there are identically
named files in /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig, then again, those need to go
away before you have much hope of this working.

Honestly, you should probably install a new 11.0 system in a chroot
and try building everything from scratch on there - that way, you know
that any problems encountered are not due to incompatibilities from
old (failed,partial) installations.


[1] Yes, I know that it's perfectly possible to manage it regardless -
    however, I think the point is clear...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF4jXI7QPvQNDlLwQRAj+7AJ0S6SoZ0K6CqRb2vrUjkqzEUHIkEQCfZrLY
ATmkMwlg3n/NRq8VveU1UmA=
=B8zJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----