Hi, * David T-G [04/26/02 12:52:58 CEST] wrote: > ...and then Rocco Rutte said... > % * David T-G [04/25/02 19:14:01 CEST] wrote: > % > So which is easier, to remove a file or to tell configure to not put it > % > there in the first place? And which is easier, to do nothing or to > % > modify the configure and make rules? > % > % That doesn't seem to be as easy as you write. I was almost > % going to insert a coin into my floppy drive to make the build > % procedure do what I wanted.
> Removing a file is tough? I don't get it. Was the coin so that computer > could flip to decide? :-) It was the last chance I had. The situation is, that have two systems with mutt installed. I'd like to install my own under $HOME and use the systems mutt_dotlock. I tried a few things until now seems to work. > % I simply wanted to built without the mutt_dotlock included. > % And because I wasn't abled to make it work, it added a line to > % my autobuilder just using sed to overwrite a #define directive > % in config.h. Done. > That'll work, too. My understanding, though, is that if you don't build > mutt_dotlock then mutt itself will try to do the dotlocking, which means > that the mutt you build won't find the system mutt_dotlock 'cuz it will > never look for it. Won't your dotlocking still fail? Hmm, you can configure where the binary is, if you build with support for an external dotlock program. That seems to work. > % It doesn't really matter, I think. The dotlock program is the > % last which is to be installed. if chgrp fails, who cares since > % (at that point) everything else is sucessfully where it should > Well, yes, all else is well, but 1) you get an error from the make > (can't be helped unless you change what's to be done) and 2) you have > this useless mutt_dotlock lying around that can get in your way later, > as Vincent has brought up. I have an autobuilder which applies all patches at once. So the build and install procedures are patched as well. Cheers, Rocco.
msg27679/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
