bug-gawk
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug-gawk] gawk's configure depends on... gawk


From: arnold
Subject: Re: [bug-gawk] gawk's configure depends on... gawk
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 02:31:52 -0700
User-agent: Heirloom mailx 12.4 7/29/08

Hi.

> Literally the configure script for gawk depends upon gawk already
> existing...
>
> Dudes...

No, it depends on there being some working version of awk, not
specifically gawk itself.  This applies across the board, you need
a working shell, compiler, sed, etc. in order to build any of the tools.
As awk is a standard tool, it's reasonable to expect there to be some
version of it.

You can compile gawk first --without-readline (or whatever
configure wants) and then use that for bootstrapping, or use
a different awk (mawk, Brian Kernighan's awk) for bootstrapping.

The undefined symbol probably comes from the ncurses library, but
that is mostly a guess.

I hope this helps,

Arnold

Daniel Chapiesky <address@hidden> wrote:

> Trying to compile gawk with a custom readline...
>
> Compile my readline lib... good...
>
> Configure gawk with --use-readline=/my/custom/readline
>
> gawk: readline blah blah unknown symbol :UP
>
> Moving readline around per other forums is not a solution...
>
> Literally the configure script for gawk depends upon gawk already
> existing...
>
> Dudes...
>
> Defining $AWK is not a solution... as gawk/awk do not yet exist....
>
> Have looked to see how embedded linux distributions get around this and
> perhaps I have failed in my search so far....  but it appears most of 'em
> cross compile from a system that already has gawk... which is NOT my
> solution...
>
> If you are wondering why this might be such a pain for me... then I can
> only say that some institutions want to compile their own with tools they
> compiled on their own... and requiring a tool to exist in order to compile
> said tool is not a solution...
>
> Any help that can be given will be graciously acknowledged.
>
> Thanks.
> Daniel



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]