On Feb 7, 2001, Geoffrey Wossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Command line error D2021 : invalid numeric argument '/Wp,-MD,.deps/applicationpr
I'm using automake 1.4
automake 1.4's ``development'' Makefiles (i.e., those you get before
`make dist' or `automake -i') require GNU make and GCC. CVS
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Feb 6, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't go that way! AC_PREREQ.
It won't let you define fallbacks for older releases, which is exactly
the point. ifdef, as you proposed, is the way to go.
I think there is some confusion
Any point in these spaces?
Lars J
Index: data.am
===
RCS file: /cvs/automake/automake/data.am,v
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -r1.26 data.am
--- data.am 2000/10/16 09:01:36 1.26
+++ data.am 2001/02/07 16:23:17
@@
Hello, Akim!
Under this condition, I will definitely quit the group. I'm OK with
providing reasonable backward compatibility, but I'm tired (to remain
somewhat polite) of wasting my time in details of the past.
You are missing the point completely. Nobody is asking _you_ to care about
"David" == David Petrou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David include_HEADERS = pdl_config.h
David This seems to imply that config.h should _not_ be distributed,
David like I'm doing above. What's wrong with what I'm doing? If
David it's really so bad, how do I get around the problem that users
"Per" == Per Bothner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Per The Autotools book, the automake-1.4 manual, and the
Per automake-1.4/NEWS all imply that "include" is part of automake
Per 1.4. So how come it doesn't work, but when I try automake from
Per cvs it does work?
Maybe it is a bug in the book.
Akim * automake.in: Various formatting changes, and modernization of
Akim Perl constructs.
Akim (backname): New.
Akim (handle_configure, define_standard_variables): Use it.
Ok.
Akim - print "Copyright 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\n";
Akim + print "Copyright 2000, 2001
"Akim" == Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Akim A very stupid and mechanic patch, indeed, but it helps me seeing what
Akim happens. In this patch I took the freedom of introducing a new
Akim syntax: @FOO@ means `to be substituted', while `?FOO?' means to be
Akim removed if positive, or
"Derek R. Price" wrote:
"Derek R. Price" wrote:
Looks like someone broke the 'make dist' target in the last few days.
Specifically, input files from AC_OUTPUT are no longer being added to
DIST_COMMON...
Here's the patch.
This doesn't appear to be the correct fix. I'll write the test
Hello, Derek!
Looks like someone broke the 'make dist' target in the last few days.
I also noticed that.
Specifically, input files from AC_OUTPUT are no longer being added to
DIST_COMMON...
Exactly the same problem.
Here's the patch.
This doesn't appear to be the correct fix.
Hello, Tom!
Derek I've attached a slightly more succinct test for the original
Derek problem I pointed out (distcommon.test). It's nice as a
Derek perquisite at least, as it doesn't require autoconf or make...
Derek I'm not quite sure I understand the second problem you pointed
Derek out.
I've long considered it a mistake that tests/ChangeLog exists. I
think it should be merged with the main ChangeLog.
How about I rename tests/ChangeLog and we start putting entries into
the toplevel ChangeLog? Any objections?
Tom
This area still requires more work. I think I know another case where
it can fail: suppose you do `AC_OUTPUT(subdir/foo)' where there is no
Makefile.am in subdir? Then I think no rule to rebuild subdir/foo
will be generated.
I would not call it a "failure" - if Automake doesn't control
This area still requires more work. I think I know another case where
it can fail: suppose you do `AC_OUTPUT(subdir/foo)' where there is no
Makefile.am in subdir? Then I think no rule to rebuild subdir/foo
will be generated.
Pavel I would not call it a "failure" - if Automake doesn't
Tom Tromey wrote:
Anyway I wrote a test for the weird case and checked it in.
I also checked in a fix for both the recent bugs in that area. I'm
afraid I'm not entirely sure why my fix fixes distcommon.test :-(.
Checked in? Fixes? I'm not pulling any changes...
Derek
--
Derek Price
Tom Tromey wrote:
"Pavel" == Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm checking this in.
Pavel I'm sorry, but the bug seems to be yours. The new test fails
Pavel after automake.in changes from revision 1.848 to 1.849.
Oh, I know it is mine..
Pavel In fact it says directly: "Don't
Derek Checked in? Fixes? I'm not pulling any changes...
I can't explain that. I've seen the commit message and everything.
You aren't using the subversions automake are you?
That is a mirror that doesn't update.
Tom
"Derek" == Derek R Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Derek Also, looking at this area of the code reminds me that I sent
Derek a, unfortunately largish, patch in something over a month ago
Derek that hasn't been reviewed to my knowledge. The patch was
Derek intended to fix a misplaced depcomp
You aren't using the subversions automake are you?
That is a mirror that doesn't update.
Derek Yeah, I am. Where is the other one?
All the info is available via the home page.
http://sources.redhat.com/automake/
Tom
"Derek R. Price" wrote:
Tom Tromey wrote:
Derek Checked in? Fixes? I'm not pulling any changes...
I can't explain that. I've seen the commit message and everything.
You aren't using the subversions automake are you?
That is a mirror that doesn't update.
Yeah, I am. Where is
Pavel Roskin wrote:
On 7 Feb 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
I've long considered it a mistake that tests/ChangeLog exists. I
think it should be merged with the main ChangeLog.
How about I rename tests/ChangeLog and we start putting entries into
the toplevel ChangeLog? Any objections?
No
Tom Tromey wrote:
"Derek" == Derek R Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Derek Also, looking at this area of the code reminds me that I sent
Derek a, unfortunately largish, patch in something over a month ago
Derek that hasn't been reviewed to my knowledge. The patch was
Derek intended to
Tom Tromey wrote:
"Derek" == Derek R Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Derek Also, looking at this area of the code reminds me that I sent
Derek a, unfortunately largish, patch in something over a month ago
Derek that hasn't been reviewed to my knowledge. The patch was
Derek intended to
What you don't want to do is inline the actual rules.
Akim That's indeed what I was referring to. Well, I think. What
Akim were you thinking about? I did not think about parallel
Akim builds... The transformation above is what is now implemented.
Akim In fact, what I presented in the
Tom Note that the clean-am rules are run from the clean-recursive
Tom rules in subdirs.am. That happens so that we can force the
Tom ordering, and it is important. This is true for the ordinary
Tom (all, install, etc) -recursive rules in subdirs.am as well.
Akim !!!
Akim Do we have specific
"Adam" == Adam J Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam EXTRA_PROGRAMS = typedefs
Adam EXTRA_typedefs_SOURCES = typedefs.l
Adam It produced the following error:
Adam automake: Makefile.am: object `typedefs.$(OBJEXT)' created by
Adam `typedefs.c' and `
This is intentional.
You only specified
I'd like to also work out a naming scheme for internally generated
targets. That way eventually it will be clear what people can rely
on and what they cannot. Suggestions here are welcome.
Alexandre How 'bout `_am-target-name'? (note the leading underscore)
Sounds good.
I've updated
"Pavel" == Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pavel I believe that names beginning with am_ are
Pavel private. I.e. AM_INCLUDE should become am_include. I believe
Pavel that user code should not do anything with the names beginning
Pavel with ac_ and am_.
I chose `_am_' instead to make it
"Lars" == Lars J Aas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Any point in these spaces?
Nope. I checked this in.
Please send a ChangeLog entry with your patches.
Tom
"Derek" == Derek R Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, thanks.
This is definitely an automake bug.
Your proposed fix sounds ok to me.
Patch included.
Derek Whoops. Here's the patch for real.
This patch is still big enough that we need paperwork.
Derek Akim, what is the naming
"Lars" == Lars J Aas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Anyways, are the people that count looking into this patch? I'd
Lars prefer it if it was applied or rejected as soon as possible
Lars instead of waiting in the dark...
What, and break the long automake tradition of getting email about
your
"Oswald" == Oswald Buddenhagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oswald { echo "configure: error: source directory already configured; run "make
distclean" there first" 12; exit 1; }
Oswald (note the " around "make distclean" - they should be \")
Thanks. Weirdly, nobody ever noticed this before.
32 matches
Mail list logo
