On Tuesday, 28 December 2004, at 19:40:34 (-0500),
Peter Hyman wrote:
> > configure creates the Makefiles
>
> That's my point. It doesn't! There is no Makefile.in.
Peter,
This is why these tools are less-than-affectionately known around here
as autoFUCK. There's very little consistency between
On Tuesday 28 December 2004 05:59 pm, Peter Hyman wrote:
> Well, this was not easy for me, esp., since I am not the config guru.
take a step back
why are you running these autotools yourself ? why arent you running
`./autogen.sh` ?
as you showed somewhere in a previous e-mail, you're attemptin
On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 20:07 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 December 2004 07:40 pm, Peter Hyman wrote:
> > That's my point. It doesn't! There is no Makefile.in.
>
> Makefile.in is generated by automake from Makefile.am and other magical
> files,
> configure generates Makefile from M
On Tuesday 28 December 2004 07:40 pm, Peter Hyman wrote:
> That's my point. It doesn't! There is no Makefile.in.
Makefile.in is generated by automake from Makefile.am and other magical files,
configure generates Makefile from Makefile.in
-mike
---
On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 18:28 -0500, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 December 2004, at 17:59:11 (-0500),
> Peter Hyman wrote:
>
> > Well, this was not easy for me, esp., since I am not the config guru.
> >
> > HOWEVER, I found the problem that allowed me to complete configure,
> > althoug
On Tuesday, 28 December 2004, at 17:59:11 (-0500),
Peter Hyman wrote:
> Well, this was not easy for me, esp., since I am not the config guru.
>
> HOWEVER, I found the problem that allowed me to complete configure,
> although it still does not create a Makefile.
>
> First, configure.in has an er
