Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are right, the presence of $(ARGZ_H) in $(BUILT_SOURCES) makes this
> rule unnecessary. (Historically, the rule predates the use of BUILT_SOURCES.)
> Thanks for the hint. I propose this patch in gnulib.
Thanks; I installed that. At the same time I c
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Bruno> all-local $(libfoo_la_OBJECTS): $(ARGZ_H)
>
> Hmmm, why do you need this since $(ARGZ_H) is already in
> $(BUILT_SOURCES), and "all" depends on $(BUILT_SOURCES)?
You are right, the presence of $(ARGZ_H) in $(BUILT_SOURCES) makes this
rule unnecessary. (Histori
>>> "Bruno" == Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Bruno> all-local $(libfoo_la_OBJECTS): $(ARGZ_H)
Hmmm, why do you need this since $(ARGZ_H) is already in
$(BUILT_SOURCES), and "all" depends on $(BUILT_SOURCES)?
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> It's a bit tricky to reproduce: You
> need a system which has no argz.h, then configure, then `make check'
> without prior make. If you had ever run `make' before in this build
> tree, even after `make clean' the dependency information is stored in
> libltdl/.deps/*.Plo, a
hat fails on solaris.
> >
> > Let's see: ls libltdl/argz.h created by running `make' in $top_builddir?
>
> Yes. I ran "make check" without a "make" first.
> This seems to work on Linux...
Yes, but that works only because GNU/Linux has argz.h.
&g
; adl> % cat foo.sh
> adl> set -e
> adl> for x in a; do
> adl>BAR="foo"
> adl>false && echo true
> adl>echo mumble
> adl> done
>
> We already have added workarounds for this bugs in other places.
> If you want to add o
t;
adl>false && echo true
adl>echo mumble
adl> done
We already have added workarounds for this bugs in other places.
If you want to add one to make.test, I don't have a problem with it.
Tom
Scrap my earlier mumblings and the patch! Having been put right again by
Christos:
When this option is on, if a simple command fails for any of the
reasons listed in Consequences of Shell Errors or returns an exit
status value >0, and is not part of the compound list following a
while, until, or
Actually, you really don't want set -e in make.test:
for flag in '' -w; do
MAKE="$save $flag" ./configure
fgrep 'am__include = #' Makefile && exit 1
touch configure.in
$MAKE $flag
fgrep 'am__include = #' Makefile && e
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 04:36:36PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> I managed to reproduce this (on NetBSD 1.5.2), and reduced the
> failure to the following script:
>
> % cat foo.sh
> set -e
> for x in a; do
>BAR="foo"
>false && echo true
>echo mumble
> done
> % sh -x foo.sh
> +
I managed to reproduce this (on NetBSD 1.5.2), and reduced the
failure to the following script:
% cat foo.sh
set -e
for x in a; do
BAR="foo"
false && echo true
echo mumble
done
% sh -x foo.sh
+ set -e
+ BAR=foo
+ false
This ought to print "mumble". It does so if you remove the loop
or
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 06:54:07PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>
> Patrick> config.status: creating Makefile
> Patrick> + fgrep am__include = # Makefile
> Patrick> FAIL: make.test
>
> So, what does this Makefile contains?
>
> Could you run
> grep
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 09:31:19PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Nope, this code comes from Automake, and `am__include = include'
> is the expected output.
>
> The question is why does
>
> fgrep 'am__include = #' Makefile && exit 1
>
> abort the test?
>
> Can you check how the followi
>>> "Patrick" == Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Patrick> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 06:54:07PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>>
Patrick> config.status: creating Makefile
Patrick> + fgrep am__include = # Makefile
Patrick> FAIL: mak
>>> "Patrick" == Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Patrick> config.status: creating Makefile
Patrick> + fgrep am__include = # Makefile
Patrick> FAIL: make.test
So, what does this Makefile contains?
Could you run
grep am__include /usr/s
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 06:03:41PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >>> "Patrick" == Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> Patrick> Hints on where to delve/how to fix?
>
> Yep: could you run the same test with VERBOSE=x?
>>> "Patrick" == Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Patrick> Hints on where to delve/how to fix?
Yep: could you run the same test with VERBOSE=x?
i.e.
gmake check TESTS=make.test VERBOSE=x
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Under NetBSD-1.5ZA/i386, gmake 3.79.1, $MAKE==gmake, automake cvs of 13 Feb:
=== Running test ./make.test
checking for a BSD compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking for gawk... no
checking for mawk... no
checking for nawk... no
18 matches
Mail list logo
