Re: GNU make or portable make? (was: Makefile to Makefile.am)

2010-08-17 Thread Robert J. Hansen
> I for one would be glad if automake required GNU make, since it > could make use of a lot of useful features which currently aren't > allowed. Similar to autoconf not requiring a POSIX shell, depite > the fact that non-POSIX shells are so far obsolete they are > irrelevant. Are there any tools

Re: GNU make or portable make? (was: Makefile to Makefile.am)

2010-08-17 Thread Roger Leigh
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:05:31PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 05:06:40PM CEST: > > If depending on GNU make was considered ok, then Automake would have > > been developed quite differently than it is. Given current Automake > > objectives, it is

GNU make or portable make? (was: Makefile to Makefile.am)

2010-08-17 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 05:06:40PM CEST: > If depending on GNU make was considered ok, then Automake would have > been developed quite differently than it is. Given current Automake > objectives, it is wise that individual projects also try to avoid > GNU make syntax in Mak

pattern rules example (was: Makefile to Makefile.am)

2010-08-17 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
[ automake-patches@ added; followups can drop automake@ ] Hello Thien-Thi, * Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote on Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 02:22:31AM CEST: > () Ralf Wildenhues > () Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:32:44 +0200 > >Yes, with a general example, please. > > I am unsure what "general example" means, precis

Re: Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-16 Thread John Calcote
On 8/16/2010 9:06 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, John Calcote wrote: >> >> The warning you're seeing is harmless enough on platforms that support >> GNU make. The purpose of the warning is to let you know that your users >> will not be able to build your project on systems that

Re: Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-16 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, John Calcote wrote: The warning you're seeing is harmless enough on platforms that support GNU make. The purpose of the warning is to let you know that your users will not be able to build your project on systems that support the Autotools, but do not support GNU make (not m

Re: Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-15 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello, * Paul Smith wrote on Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 04:33:46AM CEST: > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 23:32 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > # old fashioned suffix rule, portable > > > .xcf.bmp: > > > $(GIMP) -i -b '(xcf-bmp "$<" "$@")' -b '(gimp-quit 0)' > > > > > > Hey, maybe Automake hac

Re: Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-15 Thread Paul Smith
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 23:32 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > # old fashioned suffix rule, portable > > .xcf.bmp: > > $(GIMP) -i -b '(xcf-bmp "$<" "$@")' -b '(gimp-quit 0)' > > > > Hey, maybe Automake hackers can riff off this thread in time for > > the next release... (or, "Would yo

Re: Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-15 Thread Thien-Thi Nguyen
() Ralf Wildenhues () Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:32:44 +0200 Yes, with a general example, please. I am unsure what "general example" means, precisely, so the patch below simply uses the one in The GNU Make Manual. Is that ok? _ >From 7b70f8b27057c

Re: Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-15 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote on Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 07:02:21PM CEST: > Probably Automake manual (and its readers) > could benefit from changing the mysterious: > > We do not discuss pattern rules here because they are not > portable, but they can be convenient in packages that assume GNU > `mak

Re: Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-15 Thread Thien-Thi Nguyen
() "samson.pierre" () Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:09:50 +0200 (CEST) > > %.bmp: %.xcf > > $(GIMP) -i -b '(xcf-bmp "$<" "$@")' -b '(gimp-quit 0)' Is there an equivalent or anything else which can help me to write this rule avoiding this warning message? I think here you can use something lik

Re: Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-15 Thread John Calcote
On 8/14/2010 7:09 PM, samson.pierre wrote: > > Yes it works :-) > > But I see a little warning when I call autoreconf : > `%'-style pattern rules are a GNU make extension > > I think it is because I use this character ‘%’ in my rules. But this ‘%’ is > very interesting to define an implicit rules

Re: Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-14 Thread samson.pierre
> Message du 14/08/10 08:24 > De : "Ralf Wildenhues" > A : "samson.pierre" > Copie à : automake@gnu.org > Objet : Re: Makefile to Makefile.am > > > Hello, > > * samson.pierre wrote on Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:01:15AM CEST: >

Re: Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-13 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello, * samson.pierre wrote on Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 04:01:15AM CEST: > GIMP=gimp > RM=rm -rfv > BMP=bat.bmp beaver.bmp brown_bear.bmp cow.bmp coypu.bmp dromedary.bmp eel.bmp > elephant.bmp giraffe.bmp golden_eagle.bmp great_white_shark.bmp > hammerhead_shark.bmp human.bmp hyena.bmp jackal.bmp j

Makefile to Makefile.am

2010-08-13 Thread samson.pierre
Hello, I have a Makefile and I would like to write a Makefile.am which can help to generate a Makefile nearly the same as this Makefile. This is the tree : --- / configure.ac Makefile.am /doc Doxyfile /src Makefile.am *.c *.h /data Makefile *.xcf --- This is the data/Makefile : --- GIMP=gimp R