Re: [OMPI devel] GNU Automake 1.14 released

2013-09-03 Thread Peter Johansson
On 09/04/2013 09:10 AM, Miles Bader wrote: "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" writes: We've been using sym links in the OMPI project for years in order to compile a series of .c files in 2 different ways. It's portable to all the places that we need/want it. Hmm, how about just "cp" ...? :] Autoconf

Re: [OMPI devel] GNU Automake 1.14 released

2013-09-03 Thread Miles Bader
"Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" writes: > We've been using sym links in the OMPI project for years in order to > compile a series of .c files in 2 different ways. It's portable to > all the places that we need/want it. Hmm, how about just "cp" ...? :] -miles -- 80% of success is just showing up. -

Re: [OMPI devel] GNU Automake 1.14 released

2013-09-03 Thread Fabrício Zimmerer Murta
I think autotools has a concept of disallowing symlinks as it seems symlinks can't be done in a portable way, and the goal of autotools is making projects portable. Well, if the autotools user feels like using symlinks, then it must be expected to break portability wherever you take your autoc

Re: [OMPI devel] GNU Automake 1.14 released

2013-09-03 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
On Sep 3, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Fabrício Zimmerer Murta wrote: > I think autotools has a concept of disallowing symlinks as it seems symlinks > can't be done in a portable way, and the goal of autotools is making projects > portable. > > Well, if the autotools user feels like using symlinks, then

Re: [OMPI devel] GNU Automake 1.14 released

2013-09-03 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
How about sym linking the source file? Then you would only need a single Makefile.am; you can use different flags depending on which source file you compile. While somewhat gross, it's not totally disgusting, and it should work to the same effect...? On Aug 30, 2013, at 4:16 AM, Bert Wesarg

Re: Issues with subdir-objects and differing versions of automake

2013-09-03 Thread Miles Bader
Stefano Lattarini writes: > It seems to me that the situation there has improved a lot in the > recent years, to the point that recursive and non-recursive build > support is almost on-par (and the non-recursive option is the > recommended one). Or are you referring to documentation issues rather

Re: Issues with subdir-objects and differing versions of automake

2013-09-03 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hi Miles. On 08/29/2013 06:02 AM, Miles Bader wrote: Diego Elio Pettenò writes: I would also argue for just using non-recursive automake, but it might be the least of your problems for now. "Just" is probably not the right term, as it generally seems to require more work to make a good non-r

Re: Issues with subdir-objects and differing versions of automake

2013-09-03 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 08/26/2013 03:30 PM, Shawn Webb wrote: Hey All, Hi Shawn, sorry for the delay. I'm working on ClamAV and am restructuring our autoconf/automake scripts to be a bit more organized and modernized. On one machine, I have automake 1.14 installed.. On another, much older machine, I have automak