couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: libtool mismatch error while building from source
Date Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:52:16 GMT
Steve,

The local ./libtool is generated when you run ./configure. My 10.5
machine shows:

$ /usr/bin/glibtool --version
ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 1.5.22 (1.1220.2.365 2005/12/18 22:14:06)

$ /usr/bin/libtool -V
Apple Computer, Inc. version cctools-698.1

$ /opt/local/bin/glibtool --version
ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 2.2.6

What's probably going on here is Ports is being nice and adjusting the
PATH differently than what you've got. Try this:

$ PATH=/usr/local/bin:$PATH ./configure
$ PATH=/usr/local/bin:$PATH make

HTH,
Paul Davis

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Steve Kalkwarf <steve@kalkwarf.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm attempting to build couchdb from source on my Mac OS X 10.6 machine.
>
> Using the build commands I found in the wiki:
> <http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Installing_on_OSX> I end up with the
> following error when performing 'make' in the couchdb directory:
>
> libtool: Version mismatch error.  This is libtool 2.2.4, but the
> libtool: definition of this LT_INIT comes from libtool 2.2.6.
> libtool: You should recreate aclocal.m4 with macros from libtool 2.2.4
> libtool: and run autoconf again.
>
> I think this is because I have libtool on my $PATH:
>
> Zot:couchdb kalkwarf$ which libtool
> /usr/local/bin/libtool
> Zot:couchdb kalkwarf$ /usr/local/bin/libtool --version
> ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 2.2.6
>
> but somehow another version got copied to the couchdb folder during
> ./configure:
>
> Zot:couchdb kalkwarf$ ./libtool --version
> ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 2.2.4
>
> I can downgrade my libtool without much grief, but I'm curious where the
> couchdb/libtool binary came from, and why it's a different version than the
> one on my $PATH.
>
> Feel free to point me at a __FILE__:__LINE__ reference if it's in a makefile
> somewhere. I took a superficial look, but didn't see it anywhere obvious.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>

Mime
View raw message