I did a make clean because I wanted to remove all the object files to compile with possibly different shared libraries -- when trying to use nmh after an update this morning, it could not load some shared library and so I thought to do make clean and then ./configure and then make, but I guess for your software that is not correct.
I am using gcc 4.9.3 as my compiler. Ken Hornstein <[email protected]> wrote: > >Well, that did not work, it kept regenerating the file all over again, so I > >emptied the directory and untarred the file and it worked. I think my > >mistake was doing a make clean, but you still might want to fix a bug. > > Ah, you did a 'make clean' BEFORE building everything? Okay, that makes > sense; our 'clean' target removes sbr/dtimep.c. The comment in the > Makefile.am says: > > ## automake 1.12.6 on FreeBSD 9 needs the sbr/dtimep.c. > > That was added by David Levine so 'make distcheck' succeeded. > Normally we don't expect anyone to run a 'make clean' after running > configure (I'm trying to figure out why you would want to do that). > > However ... the resulting problem is not, I believe, our fault. > > If you do a 'make clean' or otherwise remove sbr/dtimep.c, it is > generated by lex or flex (probably flex) that is shipped on _your_ > system. In your case, the resulting output was not able to be compiled > by the compiler that exists on your system. I don't really see how we > could be expected to fix that, nor do I even know how we COULD fix that. > Personally I think it's rather unfriendly for a tool like lex/flex to > generate C99 comments, but clearly they didn't ask me. > > --Ken > -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici [email protected] _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
