Title: eMail
Es ist soweit
Wir hatten die
Schnauze voll für geile SexShows oder Videos 3,85 DM/Min. zu bezahlen und haben
uns an die Arbeit gemacht...
Nun ist es endlich
soweit und unsere ganz neue 100% kostenlose Sex Software ist fertig.
Mit dieser
neuen Software kannst Du folgendes sehen:
UYGUN FIYATA WEB SITE TASARIMI ,HOSTING , ARAMA MOTORLARINA KAYIT, SITE ( FIRMA )
REKLAMI
http://www.profesyonel.com.tr.tc
>>> "Yannick" == Yannick Perret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yannick> Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
[...]
adl> Try this:
adl> libfc_la_LDFLAGS = -Xlinker -nostartfiles
Yannick> I added it, and it change nothing. The _LDFLAGS is
Yannick> transmitted to 'libtool', but 'libtool' does not us
After executing "make distclean" a directory named autom4te.cache is left
over. It appears it's created by autoconf 2.53. Whose job is it to see it
gets deleted? Shouldn't generated distclean target take care of this
automatically? I'm using automake 1.6. Perhaps this is handled by a newer
ve
Tom Tromey wrote:
>
> > "David" == David Kirkby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> David> Incedently, is there a way of sparating the different sources,
> David> so make it look clearer. i.e something like
>
> David> CPP = file1.cpp, file2.cpp ..
> David> H= file1.h, file2.h ...
> David> XPM =
> "David" == David Kirkby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Incedently, is there a way of sparating the different sources,
David> so make it look clearer. i.e something like
David> CPP = file1.cpp, file2.cpp ..
David> H= file1.h, file2.h ...
David> XPM = file1.xpm, file2.xpm ..
David> atlc_
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 12:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> alex> Could you check if the automake 1.6.x docs make the same reference to
> alex> "GNU make" instead of just make when talking about suffix rules?
>
> No, they don't.
Great, so no doco patch needed :)
> So this is enough if you have a s
Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Probably because based on his original query I told him to put the .xpm file
> in noinst_DATA and I did not mention EXTRA_DIST at all. At that time,
> nobody had seen the Makefile.am he was using.
>
> H
Sorry if I cuased any confusion in not posting the complete Makefile.a
alex> Could you check if the automake 1.6.x docs make the same reference to
alex> "GNU make" instead of just make when talking about suffix rules?
No, they don't.
So this is enough if you have a special file type from which source files
should
be generated. But the moc problem isn't solved (co
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 12:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> alex> I think the recommended way is to add suffix rules to produce the built
> alex> sources, not edit the Makefile.ins.
>
> But is this really portable ? I looked at automake 1.4 info pages, and it tells
> something about GNU make:
Suffi
alex> I think the recommended way is to add suffix rules to produce the built
alex> sources, not edit the Makefile.ins.
But is this really portable ? I looked at automake 1.4 info pages, and it tells
something about GNU make:
> Handling new file extensions
>
>
> I
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 10:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> It is common style to generate c/cpp source files from some meta-languages.
> Examples are lex, yacc, QT's moc, swig, and probably many other tools. AFAIK
> there is currently no way to handle such files in automake and the recommended
> w
It is common style to generate c/cpp source files from some meta-languages.
Examples are lex, yacc, QT's moc, swig, and probably many other tools. AFAIK
there is currently no way to handle such files in automake and the recommended
way is to write scripts editing Makefile.in's to add seperate r
13 matches
Mail list logo
