Ed Hartnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I want is to build the documentation on the developer's machine,
> include it in the distribution, and then install it.
>
> The documents are all texinfo documents, and we cannot require that
> every user machine have texinfo and tex installed.
Douglas Phillipson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have:
> Makefile.am:
> SUBDIRS = srcbin_PROGRAMS = hello
Those two should not be on the same line :-)
> It's creating the Makefile.in in the "src" dir, but not the top level
> dir. What Am I doing wrong?
Everything else looks good!
Christopher Sean Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, thanks. Just a fleeting thought, such scripts are becoming a
> >more and more common convention and their entire purpose is to interface
> >with autoconf-substituted variables... maybe the time is coming where
> >this should be standa
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > scripts that give you information like includes, libraries, etc... is there
> > some autoconf/automake/other magic i can use to automatically generate one
> > of these for my distribution?
> Nope. Such *-config scripts are ordinary, manually written
> a
Douglas Phillipson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SUBDIRS = src
>
> My top level configure.in:
>
> AC_INIT(src/hello.c)
> AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(hello,1.1)
> AC_PROG_CC
> AC_PROG_INSTALL
> AC_OUTPUT(Makefile src/Makefile)
>
> What else needs to go in src? and What should it contain?
You do ne
A lot of packages (libxml2, APR, gnome, etc) come with these "-config"
scripts that give you information like includes, libraries, etc... is there
some autoconf/automake/other magic i can use to automatically generate one
of these for my distribution?
Thanks,
Tyler
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is this portable (enough)? I'm thinking of turning it into a general
> > automake macro so you can just do something like:
> >
> > dist_MANIFESTS = foo/MANIFEST bar/MANIFEST
> Hmm. First, I think you can just drop the
> -e "s,\s.*$$,,"
>
> par
Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to do something like this:
>
> noinst_DATA = `cat Net-BitTorrent-LibBTT/MANIFEST`
>
> Of course, that doesn't work, I end up with "No rule to make target ``cat'"
> when I invoke "make".
>
I want to do something like this:
noinst_DATA = `cat Net-BitTorrent-LibBTT/MANIFEST`
Of course, that doesn't work, I end up with "No rule to make target ``cat'"
when I invoke "make".
Is there an existing convention for pulling in a list of dist files from
somewhere else?
Thanks,
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a problem since MakeMaker makes no provision for using
> uninstalled libraries. The only way it works reliably is if the
> libraries are installed. Regardless, I have found ways to use
> uninstalled libraries if the Perl extension is built a
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interfacing between Automake and ExtUtils::MakeMaker is a bloody
> disaster. They do not support the same paradigm or targets.
> MakeMaker does weird things like having 'make clean' remove the
> Makefile. MakeMaker is inconsistent between Perl relea
I'm working on moving a project over to automake/libtool right now.
There's perl modules in some subdirectories with their own Makefile.PL's.
Is there already some m4 macros around that will let me build perl
modules from automake? Or any other projects doing the same thing I could
12 matches
Mail list logo
