[lxc-users] LXC Compilation fails under Suse Enterprise
Michael H. Warfield
mhw at WittsEnd.com
Tue May 6 04:28:11 UTC 2014
I'm cc'ing one of my Suse contacts on this thread...
On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 23:07 -0400, CDR wrote:
> I was under the impression that the LXC group could make this compile
> under every major distribution.
Strictly speaking, there is no "LXC group". There are a few core
individuals (not sure if I qualify there or not - probably not) and a
lot of contributors. I'm also a member of the Samba Team which has a
formal membership and list but that's not the case here.
We all come from different walks of life and different passions. I'm
sure Serge and Stephane don't even have all distros running as hosts in
their labs, I certainly don't.
They work for Ubuntu and are apt and Debian oriented (I won't hold that
against them). Dwight works for Oracle and there are a number of RedHat
contributors who are yum and rpm oriented. I'm fanatical about getting
things to work cross distro and a Fedora fanatic but I'm retired and I
contribute my time to the topics I chose and I feel passionate about.
Who's here speaking for the Suse, zypper crowd? Not I. I do my best
but I'm no maven on their platform. Where are they? They have to
contribute and be a part of the community.
I'm also not sure what your definition of "major" distribution is but
I'm sure it's not congruent with mine or Serge's or Stephane's.
Slackware? Mandivia? NST? Knoppix? I would personally rank those
four above Apline, Alt or Arch and possibly some even above Suse, but
there are plenty on this list who would be in my face in a heart beat to
disagree. <Shurg>
This is a best effort on the part of most of us. And that often
requires some cooperation from some of the reporters who we understand
are analyzing situations for which they are unfamiliar or unqualified to
analyze. That's a given. That's why we ask detailed questions and
expect details answers. Too often, we're given answers that are
non-answers or flat out bullshit or our explanations and instructions
are ignored or contradicted. And arguing with us is certainly less than
cooperative and even less likely to elicit further assistance from us.
We have better things to do.
My experience is more matrix than many of the others. Doesn't mean I
have every version of Suse running in my lab. I don't have any version
of Suse running on a host in my lab, OpenSuse or SEL. Where are the
Suse people?
If they want it supported on their platform, their people have to
participate. I'm not paid to support Suse. Where are they? If they
want it on SEL, it would be nice if they would provide us a copy to
develop and test on. VMWare always provided copies and licenses to the
Samba Team. Even M$ provided developer licenses to the Samba Team once
they were stung by the OpenSource requirements.
You can't develop in a vacuum. I do enough on Suse to just get by. Why
have they not chimed in on this very thread with Suse Enterprise in the
very subject. That's telling in and of itself if they don't care. If I
rag on Ubuntu or RHEL (or Oracle - Hi Dwight!), they'll be crawling out
of the woodwork on me like roaches.
> Is there any way somebody from the LXC group can research this with
> the Suse guys? They surely
> will talk to you people, but not to a customer, unless I pay support fees.
> I imagine I need to install a newer autconf or automake
I have talked (E-Mail) to the to Suse people. They need to participate
here like all the other distros that want to be supported. It's a
participatory sport, not a spectator sport. Where are they?
> rpm -qa | grep auto
> automake-1.10.1-4.131.9.1
> autoconf-2.63-1.158
> Can anybody from the developer's group confirm these versions?
Only the Suse people can confirm those versions on Suse platforms. Only
they can tell you why it's failing. I can be of no further support on
Suse platforms for you.
> Yours
> Philip
Regards,
Mike
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Michael H. Warfield <mhw at wittsend.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 22:23 -0400, CDR wrote:
> >> I know I am missing something, but I cannot figure it out.
> >> It does compile in Fedora 20
> >
> > You're gonna have to talk to the Suse guys on that one. I've got some
> > of their E-Mail addreses. I know the original author of the OpenSuse
> > template is no longer involved but I know of one or two others who have
> > taken his place and may be able to help.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> >
> >> git clone https://github.com/lxc/lxc.git
> >> cd lxc
> >> ./autogen.sh
> >> + test -d autom4te.cache
> >> + rm -rf autom4te.cache
> >> + aclocal -I config
> >> configure.ac:205: warning: macro `AM_COND_IF' not found in library
> >> configure.ac:219: warning: macro `AM_COND_IF' not found in library
> >> configure.ac:234: warning: macro `AM_COND_IF' not found in library
> >> configure.ac:252: warning: macro `AM_COND_IF' not found in library
> >> configure.ac:269: warning: macro `AM_COND_IF' not found in library
> >> configure.ac:304: warning: macro `AM_COND_IF' not found in library
> >> configure.ac:315: warning: macro `AM_COND_IF' not found in library
> >> configure.ac:377: warning: macro `AM_COND_IF' not found in library
> >> + autoheader
> >> + autoconf
> >> configure.ac:18: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_SUBST
> >> If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
> >> See the Autoconf documentation.
> >> configure.ac:36: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_MSG_CHECKING
> >> configure.ac:72: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_MSG_RESULT
> >> configure.ac:118: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_MSG_ERROR
> >> configure.ac:199: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_CHECK_LIB
> >> configure.ac:205: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_COND_IF
> >> configure.ac:206: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_CHECK_HEADER
> >> configure.ac:235: error: possibly undefined macro: PKG_CHECK_MODULES
> >> configure.ac:305: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_PATH_PYTHON
> >> configure.ac:307: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED
> >> configure.ac:328: error: possibly undefined macro: PKG_CHECK_VAR
> >> + exit 1
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> lxc-users mailing list
> >> lxc-users at lists.linuxcontainers.org
> >> http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
> >
> > --
> > Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 | mhw at WittsEnd.com
> > /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
> > NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
> > PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lxc-users mailing list
> > lxc-users at lists.linuxcontainers.org
> > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
> _______________________________________________
> lxc-users mailing list
> lxc-users at lists.linuxcontainers.org
> http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
--
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 | mhw at WittsEnd.com
/\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/pipermail/lxc-users/attachments/20140506/86376890/attachment.sig>
More information about the lxc-users
mailing list