Hi Andrey, On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 08:47:11PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 05:33:01PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:21:10PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > libsrc/Wi/Makefile.am:544: library has 'libwi_base_la' as canonical > > > > name (possible typo) > > > This is correct, there is a var named libwi_base_la_cflags which seems to > > > be a generic var so it should be renamed to something not looking like > > > foo_cflags automake var. > > > > That's why I did s/cflags/CFLAGS/. > Ah, I was assuming the vars are case insensitive so the original name is > problematic.
I assumed that Makefile variables are case sensitive and so Makefile.am variables are. I've never seen lower case spelling in those cases. > Do you have the same error without that change? Because the > canonical names of automake target vars are foo_CFLAGS. Automake was warning about typos and from what I can see these are simply typos. > > > > libsrc/Wi/Makefile.am:574: warning: variable 'libwi_odbc_la_LDFLAGS' is > > > > defined but no program or > > > > libsrc/Wi/Makefile.am:574: library has 'libwi_odbc_la' as canonical > > > > name (possible typo) > > > This is because that library is indeed not defined. > > > > > > > I searched the web for > > > > "library has" + "as canonical name (possible typo)" > > > Well, the error messages say "no program or library has that name" which > > > is correct: > > > > > > noinst_LTLIBRARIES = libwi.la libwic.la > > > > > > So this is just dead code. > > > > OK, I think I fixed this specifiv Makefile.am[1]. > So you've enabled building IODBC_LIBS? Why? It is disabled by the > upstream. It's a conditional variable (further above in Makefile.am). I see no point in uncommenting it since it can be enabled or disabled via flags. When enabling it the automake bug goes away and thus I assumed that would just have been a regression from some upstream change. > And you made a libwi_base.la which is not what was intended. As I said, > libwi_base_la_cflags is a generic var meant to be included in other vars. > And are you sure you need to fix those "LDLAGS" if it was that way in the > upstream code? May be I misunderstood your hint. What less invasive / more upstream intended patch would you suggest? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de