Hi Paul,
I just come across the ldconfig manual. It seems it prefers the chained links
like the CMake does too.
```
ldconfig expects a certain pattern to how the symbolic links are set up,
like this example, where the middle file (libfoo.so.1 here) is the
SONAME for the library:
libfoo
On Mon, 2024-01-01 at 04:20 +0800, lijh8 wrote:
> libtool creates both symlinks to the real library file.
> But CMake creates one symlink to the real file and another symlink to
> the first symlink.
>
> I'm sticking with manual Makefile but which way should I follow?
First, I don't think this is
On Jul 20 2019, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 20:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> checking whether closedir returns void... no
>> ./configure: line 9660: PKG_PROG_PKG_CONFIG: command not found
>> ./configure: line 9672: syntax error near unexpected token `GUILE,'
>> ./configure: lin
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 20:55 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> checking whether closedir returns void... no
> ./configure: line 9660: PKG_PROG_PKG_CONFIG: command not found
> ./configure: line 9672: syntax error near unexpected token `GUILE,'
> ./configure: line 9672: ` PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GUILE, guile
Hi Jeffrey,
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 20:55:48 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> I'm trying to build Make 4.2.1 from the release tarball on an antique system.
> I've tried configuring with without a guile option, --without-guile and --
> disable-guile. In each case the tail of configure results in:
> ./co
> On 18 Jul 2019, at 01:55, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> I'm trying to build Make 4.2.1 from the release tarball on an antique
> system. I've tried configuring with without a guile option,
> --without-guile and --disable-guile. In each case the tail of
> configure results in:
>
> checking for wor
> If the makefile, or any of the files it includes, is updated by make
> then make will re-execute itself and re-read all the makefiles from
> scratch so it can see the updated content. When that happens,
> obviously all the $(info ...) functions etc. will be re-expanded.
Thanks for your repeated
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 15:56 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > As always, if you can't figure out what's going on running "make
> > -d" will help you more than we can.
>
> I wonder about the information “Re-executing[1]: make --no-builtin-
> rules -d” there.
> Unfortunately, I do not recognise so
> Your Makefile looks likely to rebuild .depend, a file that it includes.
> So, like Paul said:
>>> or else make has re-executed itself
>>> because this makefile or one of its
>>> included files was rebuilt;
Yes. - This can happen at the moment.
> I wonder about the information “Re-executing[1]
Your Makefile looks likely to rebuild .depend, a file that it includes. So,
like Paul said:
>> or else make has re-executed itself
>> because this makefile or one of its
>> included files was rebuilt; see
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnu.org%2Fsoftware%2Fm
> If you are seeing these values printed multiple times it means that the
> makefile is being parsed multiple times.
How can such additional parsing be clarified further?
Will it help to display extra data from special make variables?
> Why that might be, we can't determine from the information
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 09:36 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > modules_without_mli::=$(filter-out $(basename $(mli_sources)),$(basename
> > $(ml_sources)))
> > $(info modules_without_mli)
> > $(info $(sort $(modules_without_mli)))
>
> Now I observe that the test output occurs twice while I am tr
> modules_without_mli::=$(filter-out $(basename $(mli_sources)),$(basename
> $(ml_sources)))
> $(info modules_without_mli)
> $(info $(sort $(modules_without_mli)))
It seems that I got this design approach working to some degree by the addition
of a few calls of make functions. I am not completely
Put it into a variable:
, = ,
$(patsubst %,-Wl$,-y,%_,$(FOO))
If that's too tricky, just use a variable like COMMA or something :-).
All GNU make functions parse up the arguments to the function BEFORE any
evaluation of the arguments happens.
--
--
On 12 Jul 2005 at 10:14 UTC-0700, Ted Stern wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What is the proper way to insert commas into each word of a GNU Make
> variable?
>
> I want to change FOO something like this:
>
> FOO := a b c d e
> FOO := $(patsubst %,-Wl,-y,%_,$(FOO))
>
> to get
>
> -Wl,-y,a_ -Wl,-y
On 7/12/05, Ted Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> What is the proper way to insert commas into each word of a GNU Make
> variable?
>
> I want to change FOO something like this:
>
> FOO := a b c d e
> FOO := $(patsubst %,-Wl,-y,%_,$(FOO))
>
> to get
>
> -Wl,-y,a_ -Wl
Ted Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all,
Your post belongs to help-make, not bug-make.
>
> What is the proper way to insert commas into each word of a GNU Make
> variable?
>
> I want to change FOO something like this:
>
> FOO := a b c d e
> FOO := $(patsubst %,-Wl,-y,%_,$(FOO))
%% "nlsde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
n> bug-make, I encountered a problem when I was trying to compile a
n> gtk programm on HPUX 11.0.
I don't understand why you're asking here. You were able to build and
install GNU make properly (with a configure --prefix=/opt/gtk, GNU make
will install
%% "Howard Chu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
hc> You just answered your own question: "b" & "c" depend on "a", so make "a"
hc> a dependency for "b" & "c":
Right, what Howard said; I got it backwards in my message :(.
--
---
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> John Alvord
>
> I've been working to rework some makefiles to they work correctly
> under parallel execution conditions.
>
> all: a b c
>
> a:
>
> b:
>
> c:
>
> Lets say "a" is a rule which creates some
%% [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Alvord) writes:
ja> I've been working to rework some makefiles to they work correctly
ja> under parallel execution conditions.
ja> all: a b c
ja> a:
ja> b:
ja> c:
ja> Lets say "a" is a rule which creates some directories which are used
ja> by "b" an
21 matches
Mail list logo
