On Aug 18, 2005, at 8:04 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:08:07AM -0500, Brian Barrett wrote:
Sorry about that - some files moved around yesterday afternoon. You
can either re-run autogen.sh / configure / make again and that
*should* fix the problem, or you can:
It doesn't
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:08:07AM -0500, Brian Barrett wrote:
> Sorry about that - some files moved around yesterday afternoon. You
> can either re-run autogen.sh / configure / make again and that
> *should* fix the problem, or you can:
It doesn't :(
>
> cd ompi/mca/ptl/sm
> rm .dep
Sorry about that - some files moved around yesterday afternoon. You
can either re-run autogen.sh / configure / make again and that
*should* fix the problem, or you can:
cd ompi/mca/ptl/sm
rm .deps/*
make -k
cd ../../../
Brian
On Aug 18, 2005, at 7:02 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Aug 8, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
You should not need to re-run autogen.sh after a Makefile.am changes
--
you only need to re-run autogen.sh if a .m4 file or configure.ac
changes. See the HACKING file.
I know. You are right, but I am running autogen.sh and build on
different
c
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:11:11AM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> You should not need to re-run autogen.sh after a Makefile.am changes --
> you only need to re-run autogen.sh if a .m4 file or configure.ac
> changes. See the HACKING file.
I know. You are right, but I am running autogen.sh and bui
You shouldn't need to run autogen.sh after that update. The
Makefile.am no longer included the ns_base_nds.c file - that change
should have just (automatically) caused the local Makefile to be
rebuilt without doing an autogen.sh of the entire tree.
At 08:07 AM 8/8/2005, you wrote:
On Mon, Au
You should not need to re-run autogen.sh after a Makefile.am changes --
you only need to re-run autogen.sh if a .m4 file or configure.ac
changes. See the HACKING file.
Makefile's should be automatically regenerated during "make all" if
their corresponding Makefile.am's were modified (depen
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 07:44:48AM -0600, Ralph H. Castain wrote:
> Very interesting - it built fine for me (building static). However,
> the ns_base_nds.c file is "stale", so I just committed a "delete" of
> that file. It shouldn't have been building anyway as it isn't in the
> Makefile. My gue
Very interesting - it built fine for me (building static). However,
the ns_base_nds.c file is "stale", so I just committed a "delete" of
that file. It shouldn't have been building anyway as it isn't in the
Makefile. My guess, therefore, is that you are building dynamically
and are encountering
