libsndfile build on FC22

[Leonard den Ottolander]

Hi,

On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 23:43 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 23:28:19 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> > I skipped the autoreconf step on my C6 build and the build went fine.
> > What will the skipping of the autoreconf step have resulted in?
> 
> Build output should tell. Autotools are quite smart, and as long as the
> main configure script is available, it may notice that some output files
> that are out-of-date. It will tell if it tries to regenerate files.

Automake complains but proceeds without error:
 cd .. && /bin/sh /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/libsndfile-1.0.25/Cfg/missing
--run auto
make-1.11 --gnu src/Makefile
aclocal.m4:16: warning: this file was generated for autoconf 2.68.
You have another version of autoconf.  It may work, but is not
guaranteed to.
If you have problems, you may need to regenerate the build system
entirely.
To do so, use the procedure documented by the package, typically
`autoreconf'.
 cd .. && /bin/sh ./config.status src/Makefile depfiles
config.status: creating src/Makefile
config.status: executing depfiles commands
make: Nothing to be done for `genfiles'.
make: Nothing to be done for `genfiles'.

If I do not require the autoreconf step for a rebuild on CentOS 6 then
it is surely redundant on Fedora 22?

> > The gsm
> > library calls being hard linked in the binary instead of creating a
> > dependency on gsm?
> 
> That's unlikely if the libgsm copy has been removed from the source tree.

I thought it might link in the systems library calls.

> Btw, "rpm -qpR …" on the built libsndfile package will tell whether it's linked
> with the shared lib or a built-in static lib.

But it does instead require the system gsm library.

Cheers,
Leonard.

-- 
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research