> In other words, dealing with junk like
>
> apps_build_postgres_src_build_postgres_SOURCES
>
> is very tiring and failure prone. Is there a reason why it can't
> simply be
>
> apps/build-postgres/src/build-postgres_SOURCES ?
Speaking as a random user, this would only be a win (to me) if the t
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 07:52:37PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> It transforms macros and paths in an included file (called
> Makefile.rules for now) , to make them suitable for a non-recursive
> build.
>
> As show by the test cases, this allows a couple of neat things:
> 1) A stub Makefile.am
>
cy between the file list and actual
directory content.
Perhaps you can also reconsider the advantages and disadvantages of each
approach.
Hope this helps,
Jirka Hanika
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:50:14PM +1200, Matthew Walker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know how I should go about specifying AM_CPPFLAGS from
> within my configure.ac.
For such things, it is VERY useful to add something like this:
include $(top_srcdir)/Makefile.common
at the top of every Ma
Hi Matthew, Stepan, Ralf,
first let me thank Ralf and Stepan, for your comments about the code
snippet, I've learned a lot. You are both right.
For example I'll try to upgrade the "unused variable" warning avoidance
code to something like
if (((int)argv) * ((int)argv) < 0 || argc < 0) printf(""
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 03:12:48PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jirka Hanika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For example I'll try to upgrade the "unused variable" warning avoidance
> > code to something like
> >
> > if (((int)argv) * ((int
> However, apparently there is no choice but to support them since Java
> requires it. It really confuses me how a company like Sun could create
> a language that is so difficult to use with standard UNIX tools. If
> you're going to invent a language, why not make it easy to work with?
I may be
> > Are inter-library dependencies specified?
>
> As far as I know, inter-library dependencies are handled automatically.
> In other words, you link against A.dll and you don't care whether A.dll
> depends on B.dll or C.dll or both. You thus never have to compute the
> transitive closure of the ne
