Re: make xconfig not working
On 14 Jul 2004, Yohann Desquerre wrote:
> Marvin Gerardo Aguero Salazar wrote:
>
> >Hi guys,
> >
> >I am trying to install/compile the kernel 2.6, but when I issue the 'make
> >xconfig' command I get a whole bunch of errors. Here is just a sample:
> >
> >make[1]: Nothing to be done for `Makefile'.
> > HOSTLD scripts/kconfig/qconf
> >scripts/kconfig/qconf.o(.text+0x2b): In function
> >`ConfigView::initMetaObject()':
> >: undefined reference to `QVBox::className() const'
> >scripts/kconfig/qconf.o(.text+0x67): In function
> >`ConfigView::initMetaObject()':
> >: undefined reference to `QObject::badSuperclassWarning(char const*,
> >char const*)'
> >scripts/kconfig/qconf.o(.text+0xaf): In function `ConfigView::tr(char
> >const*)':
> >: undefined reference to `QApplication::translate(char const*, char
> >const*, char const*) const'
> >
> >It was complaining about QT not being installed, but after 'apt-get
> >install qtlibs-dev' I passed this error. Now I am getting the errors I
> >am showing here.
> >
> >Any help will be greatly appreciated.
> >
> >
>
> i think should install qt3-dev-tools package !
>
>
> >-Marvin
I tried this but it didn't allow make xconfig to work, and nor has any
of the other suggestions I've seen, in spite of repeated attempts and
the installation of all kinds of qt libraries from debian. I also tried
fetching the source of qt3-X11-free-3.3.2 and installing it in
/usr/local, but still no luck. I now get a huge stream of error
messages, ending with:
scripts/kconfig/qconf.cc:459: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
make[1]: *** [scripts/kconfig/qconf.o] Error 1
make: *** [xconfig] Error 2
The script is confused and so am I. I don't understand why the decision
to use qt was made. I have, however, managed to get make gconfig to
work, which is something I suppose. But I'd still like xconfig to work,
if only for my own satisfaction.
Anthony
--
ac@acampbell.org.uk || http://www.acampbell.org.uk
using Linux GNU/Debian || for book reviews, electronic
Windows-free zone || books and skeptical articles
Reply to: