I have installed grass63 fro les-ejk repo on a gutsy. I then checkout
from svn the releasebranch_6_3 rev. 31664
Know doing:
./configure ...
I get this error:
Unable to locate curses includes.
Any ideas?
maning
--
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| __.-._ |"Ohhh. Great warrior. Wars not make one great." -Yoda |
| '-._"7' |"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden|
| /'.-c |Linux registered user #402901, http://counter.li.org/ |
| | /T |http://esambale.wikispaces.com|
| _)_/LI
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
configure:5411: checking whether to use Curses
configure:5430: checking for curses.h
configure:5438: gcc -E conftest.c >/dev/null 2>conftest.out
configure:5434:20: error: curses.h: No such file or directory
configure: failed program was: #line 5433 "configure" #include "confdefs.h" #include <curses.h>
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM, maning sambale
<emmanuel.sambale@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I have installed grass63 fro les-ejk repo on a gutsy. I then checkout
from svn the releasebranch_6_3 rev. 31664
Know doing:
./configure ...
I get this error:
Unable to locate curses includes.
Any ideas?
maning
--
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| __.-._ |"Ohhh. Great warrior. Wars not make one great." -Yoda |
| '-._"7' |"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden|
| /'.-c |Linux registered user #402901, http://counter.li.org/ |
| | /T |http://esambale.wikispaces.com|
| _)_/LI
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
--
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| __.-._ |"Ohhh. Great warrior. Wars not make one great." -Yoda |
| '-._"7' |"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden|
| /'.-c |Linux registered user #402901, http://counter.li.org/ |
| | /T |http://esambale.wikispaces.com|
| _)_/LI
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
> I have installed grass63 fro les-ejk repo on a gutsy.
> I then checkout from svn the releasebranch_6_3 rev. 31664
>
> Know doing:
> ./configure ...
>
> I get this error:
> Unable to locate curses includes.
...
the config.log says:
configure:5411: checking whether to use Curses
configure:5430: checking for curses.h
configure:5438: gcc -E conftest.c >/dev/null
2>conftest.out
configure:5434:20: error: curses.h: No such file or
directory
configure: failed program was: #line 5433 "configure" #include "confdefs.h" #include <curses.h>
I installed all dependencies from hardy's default repo.
The configure logs this tells me:
configure:8436: checking whether to use Tcl/Tk
configure:8456: checking for location of Tcl/Tk includes
configure:8482: checking for tcl.h
configure:8490: gcc -E conftest.c >/dev/null 2>conftest.out
configure:8486:17: error: tcl.h: No such file or directory
AFAIK, I installed tcl/tk 8.4 and dev
cheers,
maning
--
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| __.-._ |"Ohhh. Great warrior. Wars not make one great." -Yoda |
| '-._"7' |"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden|
| /'.-c |Linux registered user #402901, http://counter.li.org/ |
| | /T |http://esambale.wikispaces.com|
| _)_/LI
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
The configure logs this tells me:
configure:8436: checking whether to use Tcl/Tk
configure:8456: checking for location of Tcl/Tk includes
configure:8482: checking for tcl.h
configure:8490: gcc -E conftest.c >/dev/null
2>conftest.out
configure:8486:17: error: tcl.h: No such file or directory
one thing there I don't understand: it recommends to do:
CFLAGS="-g" LDFLAGS="-s" ./configure
-g adds debugging hooks, but -s strips away debug messages. ???
(to quote tom waits: the large print giveth and the small print taketh away)
The LDFLAGS=-s part is bogus.
It used to be a common recommendation to counteract the fact that
configure defaults to "-g -O2" if the compiler is gcc. You wouldn't
use -s if you actually want the debug info.
Also, stripping the debug info is a false economy unless you're
seriously short of hard disk space. If you have your own PC (and it
doesn't belong in a museum), your disk space is likely to be measured
in hundreds of gigabytes, of which binaries (libraries and
executables) might account for around a gigabyte if *everything* is
built with debug info.
The only cases where stripping debug info makes sense is if you're
using a shared server with a miniscule quota, or if you're building a
binary distribution and you really need to minimise the size (FWIW, I
keep the debug info for the Cygwin packages).
For normal use, stick with "-g -O2". That produces optimised binaries
but keeps the debug info just in case you need to do minimal debugging
(e.g. make sense of a core file). If you want to actually debug the
program (set breakpoints, single step, examine variables etc), then
you need to drop the -O2, as it will result in object code which bears
little relation to the actual source code, and can only be debugged in
the most superficial sense.
one thing there I don't understand: it recommends to do:
CFLAGS="-g" LDFLAGS="-s" ./configure
-g adds debugging hooks, but -s strips away debug messages. ???
(to quote tom waits: the large print giveth and the small print taketh away)
The LDFLAGS=-s part is bogus.
It used to be a common recommendation to counteract the fact that
configure defaults to "-g -O2" if the compiler is gcc. You wouldn't
use -s if you actually want the debug info.
Also, stripping the debug info is a false economy unless you're
seriously short of hard disk space. If you have your own PC (and it
doesn't belong in a museum), your disk space is likely to be measured
in hundreds of gigabytes, of which binaries (libraries and
executables) might account for around a gigabyte if *everything* is
built with debug info.
The only cases where stripping debug info makes sense is if you're
using a shared server with a miniscule quota, or if you're building a
binary distribution and you really need to minimise the size (FWIW, I
keep the debug info for the Cygwin packages).
For normal use, stick with "-g -O2". That produces optimised binaries
but keeps the debug info just in case you need to do minimal debugging
(e.g. make sense of a core file). If you want to actually debug the
program (set breakpoints, single step, examine variables etc), then
you need to drop the -O2, as it will result in object code which bears
little relation to the actual source code, and can only be debugged in
the most superficial sense.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>
--
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| __.-._ |"Ohhh. Great warrior. Wars not make one great." -Yoda |
| '-._"7' |"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden|
| /'.-c |Linux registered user #402901, http://counter.li.org/ |
| | /T |http://esambale.wikispaces.com|
| _)_/LI
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
one thing there I don't understand: it recommends to do:
CFLAGS="-g" LDFLAGS="-s" ./configure
-g adds debugging hooks, but -s strips away debug messages. ???
(to quote tom waits: the large print giveth and the small print taketh away)
The LDFLAGS=-s part is bogus.
It used to be a common recommendation to counteract the fact that
configure defaults to "-g -O2" if the compiler is gcc. You wouldn't
use -s if you actually want the debug info.
Also, stripping the debug info is a false economy unless you're
seriously short of hard disk space. If you have your own PC (and it
doesn't belong in a museum), your disk space is likely to be measured
in hundreds of gigabytes, of which binaries (libraries and
executables) might account for around a gigabyte if *everything* is
built with debug info.
The only cases where stripping debug info makes sense is if you're
using a shared server with a miniscule quota, or if you're building a
binary distribution and you really need to minimise the size (FWIW, I
keep the debug info for the Cygwin packages).
For normal use, stick with "-g -O2". That produces optimised binaries
but keeps the debug info just in case you need to do minimal debugging
(e.g. make sense of a core file). If you want to actually debug the
program (set breakpoints, single step, examine variables etc), then
you need to drop the -O2, as it will result in object code which bears
little relation to the actual source code, and can only be debugged in
the most superficial sense.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>
--
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| __.-._ |"Ohhh. Great warrior. Wars not make one great." -Yoda |
| '-._"7' |"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden|
| /'.-c |Linux registered user #402901, http://counter.li.org/ |
| | /T |http://esambale.wikispaces.com|
| _)_/LI
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
--
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| __.-._ |"Ohhh. Great warrior. Wars not make one great." -Yoda |
| '-._"7' |"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden|
| /'.-c |Linux registered user #402901, http://counter.li.org/ |
| | /T |http://esambale.wikispaces.com|
| _)_/LI
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------|