On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Steffen Dettmer wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:21:32AM CET:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> > When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not
>> > propagated to configure without explicitl
* Steffen Dettmer wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:21:32AM CET:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> > When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not
> > propagated to configure without explicitly setting
> > DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS?
>
> erm... isn't --
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not
> propagated to configure without explicitly setting
> DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS?
erm... isn't --host enabling cross-compiling?
And when cross-compiling, make check always
* NightStrike wrote on Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 04:54:57PM CET:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > if your package needs some settings for distcheck to work by default,
> > then you can use DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS.
> Given that our base system is 64-bit windows, and there
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * NightStrike wrote on Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:55:09PM CET:
>> When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not
>> propagated to configure without explicitly setting
>> DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS?
>
> The de
Hello,
* NightStrike wrote on Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:55:09PM CET:
> When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not
> propagated to configure without explicitly setting
> DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS?
The default INSTALL file recommends just running
./configure
make
mak
When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not
propagated to configure without explicitly setting
DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS?
