Hello,
* LCID Fire wrote on Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:08:58PM CEST:
> I'm currently stuck with compiling a JNI library, which java does not
> recognize. I'm not too sure about what options I have to provide to
> automake and which are already builtin. Does anybody know an example of
> how a jn
* Jan Engelhardt wrote on Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 11:49:13PM CEST:
> On Saturday 2009-04-18 22:45, John Calcote wrote:
> >
> >>No, I also thought of empty directories. Quote from above: "respective
> >>installation directory is empty.".
> >I'm sure he meant "...respective installation directory *vari
On Saturday 2009-04-18 22:45, John Calcote wrote:
>>>Oh, you mean if the value of the *variable* is empty (following the
>>>thread), not the directory itself. D'oh, sorry, that should have been
>>>obvious to me from context. Never mind. :)
>
>
>>No, I also thought of empty directories. Quot
I'm currently stuck with compiling a JNI library, which java does not
recognize. I'm not too sure about what options I have to provide to
automake and which are already builtin. Does anybody know an example of
how a jni lib is built using automake?
Ralf wrote:
> What I meant was this:
> ./configure --prefix=/usr/local
> make
> make install exec_prefix=
>
> with Automake 1.10.2, most likely ends up with an error at installation
> time, or with "install" overwriting files in the build tree or so. And
> this:
>
> ./configure --prefix=
On 4/18/2009 2:32 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Saturday 2009-04-18 22:06, Russ Allbery wrote:
Russ Allbery writes:
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
[1] I'm asking because Automake 1.11 will reliably not install files if
their respective installation directory is empty. This is not
Harlan Stenn writes:
> I know that GNU coding standards really want package developers to allow
> one to be able to override the prefix at "make install" time and "it
> should just work". While I appreciate the goal and sentiment, sometimes
> that just isn't easy or feasible to do.
I disagree.
On Saturday 2009-04-18 22:06, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Russ Allbery writes:
>> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>
>>> [1] I'm asking because Automake 1.11 will reliably not install files if
>>> their respective installation directory is empty. This is not yet
>>> functional in Automake 1.10.2. The test for
Russ wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> > [1] I'm asking because Automake 1.11 will reliably not install files if
> > their respective installation directory is empty. This is not yet
> > functional in Automake 1.10.2. The test for emptiness in 1.11 will not
> > consider $(DESTDIR) of course, on
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>> [1] I'm asking because Automake 1.11 will reliably not install files if
>> their respective installation directory is empty. This is not yet
>> functional in Automake 1.10.2. The test for emptiness in 1.11 will not
>> consider $(DESTDIR) of cou
Hi Russ,
* Russ Allbery wrote on Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:50:24PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>
> > [ dropping bug-coreutils ]
>
> Dropping down to just the automake list.
Thanks.
> > [1] I'm asking because Automake 1.11 will reliably not install files if
> > their respective installation
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> [ dropping bug-coreutils ]
Dropping down to just the automake list.
> [1] I'm asking because Automake 1.11 will reliably not install files if
> their respective installation directory is empty. This is not yet
> functional in Automake 1.10.2. The test for emptiness i
[ dropping bug-coreutils ]
Hello Alfred,
* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote on Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:17:42PM CEST:
>> So for maximum portability you should support this in your
>> package, too. BTW, why do you state that overriding just $prefix
>> would be "almost always wrong"?
>
>In t
On Saturday 2009-04-18 19:21, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
>Solaris on Sparc supports both 32 and 64 bit binaries, with builds
>defaulting to 32-bit. (Thanks backwards compatibility for proprietary
>software!)
On SPARC, choosing 32-bit is an architectural decision rather
than a software or political one
Hey all,
I'm wondering if there is either an autotools feature I don't know about
or a best practice, because what I'm doing right now feels dirty.
Solaris on Sparc supports both 32 and 64 bit binaries, with builds
defaulting to 32-bit. (Thanks backwards compatibility for proprietary
software!) B
Hello Christian,
* Christian Rössel wrote on Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 06:35:54PM CEST:
> in the following project "make" succeeds but in the result of "make
> dist" the source test/src/bar.c is missing. "make distcheck" fails.
> "make distcheck" fails with the message:
> ERROR: files left in build di
16 matches
Mail list logo
