On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:40:06 +0200 "Gabor Z. Papp" <gzp@papp.hu> wrote: > * Guillem Jover wrote: > > | > without installed dpkg the new 1.16.1 tarball can't be > | > configured/compiled due the above error. > > | W/o more context I can only guess, but did configure fail to find the > | perl binary for any reason? Maybe you don't have it installed or you > | do but in a non-standard path? > > I have installed, but in a non-standard path, but even it could be > found, I don't have dpkg installed, so dpkg-architecture.pl will fail. Gabor: dpkg does try to avoid depending on itself, so there is no need for dpkg-architecture to exist in $PATH. The configure script is actually looking for dpkg-architecture.pl in the scripts/ directory of the unpacked source. So it should be entirely possible to build dpkg without having dpkg installed (it would make it impossible to bootstrap new architectures otherwise). See lines 10671, 10693 & 10715 of the configure script - it also sets the PERL5LIB to look at the unpacked sources so that the Dpkg modules can be found without having to have them installed. What dpkg does need is a working perl installation to be able to run the perl scripts directly from the unpacked sources. So as long as perl can be found, whether you have dpkg installed or not, dpkg-architecture.pl will work from the scripts/ directory. (Once the package is built, the actual script becomes dpkg-architecture - losing the .pl suffix, so this is one way to work out which script is being called.) Therefore, as Guillem has already mentioned, this is more likely to be down to your perl installation - if you set the correct path to perl does dpkg then build? What path do you need to specify to run any perl script which is not already in your $PATH? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpqiZnpaXb4Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature