build failure on debian 10? #124
Comments
|
It works for me. |
|
Thanks, missing flex is the problem, should bootstrap or configure catch that? |
|
I added a Dependencies section on https://pcsclite.apdu.fr/ |
eli-schwartz
added a commit
to eli-schwartz/CCID
that referenced
this issue
Jun 11, 2024
This explicitly reverts commit eec7cdf because it was a bad idea. The motivating bug report was LudovicRousseau/PCSC#124 and the issue there occurred when building from a git clone, running ./bootstrap && ./configure && make, and having: - configure succeed - make "succeeeds" at having $LEX run, do nothing and fail to generate required sources - compiling nonexistent files fail with highly confusing errors The autoconf manual has always documented the correct way to handle this is to check if lex is unavailable, and set it to the famous automake wrapper "missing", which checks if a program is missing at build time rather than at ./configure time, and fails the build if the rule cannot be run. This means: When building from a git clone, if flex is not available then - configure succeeds - make fails to run $LEX, and tells you to install flex The previous attempt to fix the highly confusing error instead resulted in configure erroring out, and saying flex is required, even when it is *not* required because a `make dist` tarball was used, which contains pregenerated tokenparser.c for the express purpose of making flex unnecessary. See autoconf documentation on $LEX: https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.72/html_node/Particular-Programs.html#index-AC_005fPROG_005fLEX-1 And automake documentation on why to use "missing": https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/maintainer_002dmode.html
eli-schwartz
added a commit
to eli-schwartz/PCSC
that referenced
this issue
Jun 11, 2024
This explicitly reverts commit 3f89340 because it was a bad idea. The motivating bug report was LudovicRousseau#124 and the issue there occurred when building from a git clone, running ./bootstrap && ./configure && make, and having: - configure succeed - make "succeeeds" at having $LEX run, do nothing and fail to generate required sources - compiling nonexistent files fail with highly confusing errors The autoconf manual has always documented the correct way to handle this is to check if lex is unavailable, and set it to the famous automake wrapper "missing", which checks if a program is missing at build time rather than at ./configure time, and fails the build if the rule cannot be run. This means: When building from a git clone, if flex is not available then - configure succeeds - make fails to run $LEX, and tells you to install flex The previous attempt to fix the highly confusing error instead resulted in configure erroring out, and saying flex is required, even when it is *not* required because a `make dist` tarball was used, which contains pregenerated tokenparser.c for the express purpose of making flex unnecessary. See autoconf documentation on $LEX: https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.72/html_node/Particular-Programs.html#index-AC_005fPROG_005fLEX-1 And automake documentation on why to use "missing": https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/maintainer_002dmode.html
LudovicRousseau
pushed a commit
to LudovicRousseau/CCID
that referenced
this issue
Jun 11, 2024
This explicitly reverts commit eec7cdf because it was a bad idea. The motivating bug report was LudovicRousseau/PCSC#124 and the issue there occurred when building from a git clone, running ./bootstrap && ./configure && make, and having: - configure succeed - make "succeeeds" at having $LEX run, do nothing and fail to generate required sources - compiling nonexistent files fail with highly confusing errors The autoconf manual has always documented the correct way to handle this is to check if lex is unavailable, and set it to the famous automake wrapper "missing", which checks if a program is missing at build time rather than at ./configure time, and fails the build if the rule cannot be run. This means: When building from a git clone, if flex is not available then - configure succeeds - make fails to run $LEX, and tells you to install flex The previous attempt to fix the highly confusing error instead resulted in configure erroring out, and saying flex is required, even when it is *not* required because a `make dist` tarball was used, which contains pregenerated tokenparser.c for the express purpose of making flex unnecessary. See autoconf documentation on $LEX: https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.72/html_node/Particular-Programs.html#index-AC_005fPROG_005fLEX-1 And automake documentation on why to use "missing": https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/maintainer_002dmode.html
LudovicRousseau
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 11, 2024
This explicitly reverts commit 3f89340 because it was a bad idea. The motivating bug report was #124 and the issue there occurred when building from a git clone, running ./bootstrap && ./configure && make, and having: - configure succeed - make "succeeeds" at having $LEX run, do nothing and fail to generate required sources - compiling nonexistent files fail with highly confusing errors The autoconf manual has always documented the correct way to handle this is to check if lex is unavailable, and set it to the famous automake wrapper "missing", which checks if a program is missing at build time rather than at ./configure time, and fails the build if the rule cannot be run. This means: When building from a git clone, if flex is not available then - configure succeeds - make fails to run $LEX, and tells you to install flex The previous attempt to fix the highly confusing error instead resulted in configure erroring out, and saying flex is required, even when it is *not* required because a `make dist` tarball was used, which contains pregenerated tokenparser.c for the express purpose of making flex unnecessary. See autoconf documentation on $LEX: https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.72/html_node/Particular-Programs.html#index-AC_005fPROG_005fLEX-1 And automake documentation on why to use "missing": https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/maintainer_002dmode.html
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hi, trying to build locally, I do:
bootstrap and configure succeed without errors or warnings, but make fails part way in with:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: