Bug#642402: libx11: multiarch patch broke cross-compilation
Package: libx11
Version: 2:1.4.4-1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: crossbuild@debian.org
Usertags: cross
I attempted to cross-build libx11, and it failed as follows:
cd build && \
../configure \
--prefix=/usr \
--mandir=\${prefix}/share/man \
--infodir=\${prefix}/share/info \
--libdir=\${prefix}/lib/arm-linux-gnueabi
configure: loading site script /etc/dpkg-cross/cross-config.armel
checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking host system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
[...]
X11 will be built with the following settings:
Loadable i18n module support: no
Loadable xcursor library support: yes
Threading support: yes
Use Threads safe API: yes
Threads stubs in libX11: no
XCMS: yes
Internationalization support: yes
XF86BigFont support: yes
XKB support: yes
XLOCALEDIR environment variable support: yes
Compose table cache enabled: yes
Functional specs building enabled: yes
enable-specs \
--with-xmlto \
--without-fop \
--build=i686-linux-gnu --host=arm-linux-gnueabi \
CFLAGS="-Wall -g -O2"
/bin/sh: enable-specs: not found
make: [build-stamp] Error 127 (ignored)
cd build && /usr/bin/make
[...]
(From here, the build proceeded, but for the wrong architecture.)
This bug was introduced by the multiarch patch
(http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-xorg/lib/libx11.git;a=commitdiff;h=8a3ac024dc9bd0fc3d3500974551b9234ed8ab3a),
and is obviously a missing backslash-continuation. I don't know what
else may have broken, since --enable-specs --with-xmlto --without-fop
are also effectively missing along with the setting of CFLAGS.
diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index 8252735..b17e483 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ build-stamp: configure $(STAMP_DIR)/genscripts
--prefix=/usr \
--mandir=\$${prefix}/share/man \
--infodir=\$${prefix}/share/info \
- --libdir=\$${prefix}/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)
+ --libdir=\$${prefix}/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH) \
--enable-specs \
--with-xmlto \
--without-fop \
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]
Reply to: