On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 13:01, Eric Blake wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> According to Allan Clark on 11/17/2009 3:30 AM:
> > Hi;
> >
> > in Autoconf-2.64, AT_TESTED() only works with utilities that would be
> found
> > with
Hi;
in Autoconf-2.64, AT_TESTED() only works with utilities that would be found
with AC_CHECK_PROGS(). Full pathnames don't work, so tools such as
AC_PATH_PROGS() that report a full pathname cannot be AT_TESTED().
The following patch should resolve this -- really all it does is preface a
"/" int
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:13, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> We have a makefile in a project, which works well. In the short term at
> least, we do not want to use autoconf to create a makefile, but instead use
> our own.
>
> However, it would be nice to have a configure script at the top, which at
>
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 09:34, 张亚霏 wrote:
> hi all:
>
> I write these lines in configure.in:
>
> AC_CHECK_LIB([pcre], [pcre_compile],
> [build_pcre=true],
> [build_pcre=false])
> AM_CONDITIONAL([BUILD_PCRE],[test "$build_pcre" = "true"])
>
> AC_MSG_CHECKING(pcrecpp)
> AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([
> #includ
On Sep 28, 2009, at 12:04, "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
There is an article called "recursive make considered harmful".
According to it, you should have just one Makefile.am in top level
with all the rules (all libs etc). By this, make can show its
strengths best. Often, a Makefile.am "per
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 18:00, imfel...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm trying to temporarily fork off a daemon (BIND's named) within a
> testsuite. Yet the testsuite hangs despite having started the daemon. Below
> is an excerpt of the circumstances. Running testsuite -v shows that the hang
> occurs not a
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 14:22, Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>
> I've used cross-compiles (off and on) for years and I gotta say the
>> first time I got this message I probably did some pissing and moaning.
>> But I do believe that proper namin
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 17:37, Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Allan Clark wrote:
>
> Heh. Jokes aside, I figured there's a good chance that the same "project"
> (ie
> http://freshmeat.net/projects/{PROJECT}<http://
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 17:14, Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> IMVHO any kind of repetition of knowledge encoded in rpm and apt
>> (or system vendor X package) databases is not tolerable, if it needs to
>> be hand-maintained in any way
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 03:24, Erik de Castro Lopo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Robert Rehammar wrote:
> > This way autotools would
> > integrate with (e.g.) apt to make installations more smooth. This would
> > save the user the work to download and install all packages that bar
> > depends on and
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 21:27, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 15:07 +0100, Richard Ash wrote:
> > > Such a look up table would be priceless, I think :) I have had zero
> luck
> > > in finding one.
> >
> > A compiled table would be large, cumbersome and
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Rikki Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> Is there a way to make your testsuite automatically find the executable you
> are trying to run without putting the path directly in .at? Also is
> there a way to make autotest find the program you just built wit
"don't feed the troll?"
The poster raises no concrete suggestions, and seems to focus on his own
ease, not the portability of his product. Seems to be just tossing crap
around, trolling for a response.
Some of us are defined by who we're fighting rather than what we're
building.
Allan
On Sun,
Stepan Kasal wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 02:30:25PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Being deprecated is different that being removed, and as such it would
be good to have a reference to AC_FOREACH in the eventual documentation
of m4_foreach and others, with the info that AC_FOREACH i
Keith Marshall wrote:
On Saturday 22 October 2005 10:08 am, Allan Clark wrote:
You might want to consider switching to elm, mutt, or a Mozilla-based
client (if you're a graphical guy); they have these features, and are
fairly well-tested.
I don't have any option to do th
Keith MARSHALL wrote:
Oops. Forgot that GNU's list mailers don't set the Reply-to header
properly, (can this not be fixed?), and only replied privately to
Stepan.
My mailer allows me to choose. I use "reply" when I want to make a
private reply, and "reply-all" when I want to reply to the list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
make:
cd tdg/en/html && hhc index.hhp
/bin/sh: line 1: hhc: command not found
Why does AC_CHECK_PROG find hhc ?
Isn't "Why doesn't 'make' find 'hhc'?" a better question?
of course it's a good question.
But a goal of autoco
Trevor Woerner wrote:
I have a project with source files in multiple subdirectories: src,
tests, cfg. Doxygen will generate code documentation based on special
hints in the comments of the code files themselves (like javadoc, if
you're familiar with that mechanism).
I could just blindly have Do
Yudai Yamagishi wrote:
>Hi,
>I have RedHat Linux 9.0 working as a server.
>Recently I tried to install autoconf-2.59-80 using rpm but gave me
>these errors.
>file /usr/share/info/standards.info.gz from install of autoconf-2.59-
>80 conflicts with file from package binutils-2.13.90.0.18-9
>I need t
Hi "cool_nithu";
$ ./configure --with mpiCC=yes --without-gcc
1) --with-, ie "--with-mpiCC=yes" (no space)
2) ./configure --help should tell you if that's even an option (if it's
not, ./configure ignores it)
Did these options come from that package? Did you get them from some
inform
Paul Eggert wrote:
>Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[...]
>
>>the reason I want a CPP macro and not a run-time if is that the code
>>will end up looking like this:
>>
>> if (size_of(u.ut_tv.tv_sec) = 4)
>>a_function_expecting_32_bit_argument(u.ut_tv.tv_sec);
>> else
>>a_functi
John W. Eaton wrote:
I'm using Autoconf 2.59:
devzero:450> autoconf --version
autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.59
Written by David J. MacKenzie and Akim Demaille.
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even
I regret if this is a recurring query; I didn't find in archives.
Is there a moderated form of this list? Has anyone established a
moderated list on his/her own server that feeds from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allan
___
Autoconf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Libtool-ers;
I think this issue simply becomes mired by stacking up on either side of
a "for/against" line.
Previously, it was mentioned that certain troublesome source trees be
used as litmus tests for automake or autoconf changes; the same may hold
true now for libtool. Brief summary: if you
Sebastian;
> AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB (LIBRARY, DECLARATION-SECTION,CALL-SECTION,
> [ACTION-IF-FOUND],[ACTION-IF-NOT-FOUND], [OTHER-LIBRARIES])
You've added a "declaration section" to my sample.
Is this a re-statement without further reinforcement or justification
that you want to have a #inclu
_LIB.
Do we ever have a need for an AC_CHECK_LIB() to check C libraries using
a raw code snippet? AC_CHECK_LIB(,functioncall(),...) might have
some use, but I haven't seen it yet.
Allan
"Steve M. Robbins" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 03:05:35PM -0400, Allan Clark (re
Sebastian;
> If you don't include the header file with the namespace and function
> declaration you will get a syntax error.
>
I thought that the header would be handled by a previous
AC_CHECK_HEADER()
Is there a reason not to do it there, or are you pressing the
convenience of doing it in the
I'm looking here for objections from the AutoConf list.
I could probably have a version tonight or tomorrow that ignores the
copied LANG(C)->LANG(C+) stuff and looks something like this:
AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB(library, function, params, [action-if-found],
[action-if-not-found], [other-libraries])
.
Patrick Guio wrote:
> If I just "touch configure" then everything is running ok again. I am not
> sure which of the package is generating this trouble nut is there any
> policy/strategy of using configuration tool together with a cvs
> repository?
A common timestamp issue is introduced when devel
"Mark D. Roth" wrote:
>
> On Wed May 15 17:21 2002 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > I use Automake's "aclocal" for this. It generates aclocal.m4
> > automatically from m4/*.m4. In my case, the m4/*.m4 files are often
> > links to the "canonical" versions.
>
> Unfortunately, that won't work for me
John;
I find that it's made for GCC, but seems to support (by checking) a
number of other build systems. For example, it detects and supports the
UnixWare, Open UNIX build systems, Open Server, and I think it also
works with the Intel icc tool.
In this do-it-yourself realm, I'm sure if you try
AutoConf;
This may be a Question from the FAQ -- I'd read it if I knew where it
was.
How do I make a AC_CHECK_LIB for a C++ library?
My example looks for cgi_base::configureForServer on different systems
like this:
> AC_CHECK_LIB(cgi, configureForServer__8cgi_basePci)
> AC_CHECK_LIB(cgi, config
Pavel, et al;
The CVS HEAD release passes this test.
FYI
Allan
Pavel Roskin wrote:
> The existing test in Autoconf will never pick up anything other than a
> file because in actually scans $PATH. That's why the failure is only
> observed on the systems with `fc' being a file in $PATH.
>
> [..
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 29, 2000, Marek Kowal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have an .x file and want to create, using rpcgen, stub files in
> > automake. Later on I want to compile and link part of them into server,
> > and the other part into client. Did anybody excercised this alre
34 matches
Mail list logo
