[blfs-support] libdrm-2.6.64 PKG_CHECK_MODULES syntax error

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Sun Nov 15 17:53:26 PST 2015

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:05:48AM +0100, Sebastian Skjold Højsted wrote:
> So, i checked and double checked and tripple checked installing this specific package (PCIACCESS) and the rest of the packages - also i can see all the lib*.so files in their respective folders.
> I still get the error - but funnily enough - if i comment out that specific part from the ./configure file it throws another error the next time it uses "PKG_CHECK_MODULES" - could there be something wrong with this function? i believe its part of the pkgconfig package - that i also installed and reinstalled several times
> Any ideas?
Please do not top post.

You can see the libraries themselves - to double check, does the
pciaccess.so symlink point to the versioned file, or is it broken ?
(I mean, use 'file' on it - that will tell you if it is a broken

You did not mention whether you checked the .pc files (do they
exist, are they in /usr/lib/pkgconfig or, occasionally,
/usr/share/pkgconfig ?)

The pkgconfig package is part of LFS itself, and I have not seen any
problems in any of the versions we used recently¹ (my last builds
were blfs-7.8 and lfs-svn from earlier this month).  Which version
of LFS are you using ?  Are you doing something unusual ?  Writing
your own scripts does not necesarily count as unusual, but weirdos
like me occasionally hit problems when a particular package decides
to use the same script variable name as we were already using.  More
generally, installing to unusual places (/opt/something, /usr/local,
anywhere else ) means that those need to be on PKG_CONFIG_PATH.
Setting CFLAGS has also been known to break builds (but using
regular CFLAGS such as -O2 should be ok).

> /Sebastian
> On 12 November 2015 01:27:20 +01:00, Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:08:10AM +0100, Sebastian Skjold Højsted wrote:
> > 
etc.  Snipped, it is now below the reply, so unuseful.

1. Since we moved on from 0.22, I think.

This email was written using 100% recycled letters.

More information about the blfs-support mailing list