Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> Bill Wendling wrote:
|> >
|> > Also sprach Earnie Boyd:
|> > } Sam Steingold wrote:
|> > } >
|> > } > > >
|> > } > >
|> > } > > So your real problem is where the cache directory is created. If it
|> > } > > weren't created in the source directory then your problem would be
|> > } > > solved.
|> > } >
|> > } > pretty much yes.
|> > } > /tmp/autocong.cache would be perfectly fine with me.
|> > } >
|> > }
|> > } I was thinking more of /var/tmp/autom4te.cache/<application-version> if
|> > } /var/tmp exists or /tmp/autom4te.cache/<application-version> if /var/tmp
|> > } doesn't exists or if neither exists the value of
|> > } `pwd`/autom4te.cache/<application-version> with the default overridden
|> > } by ${AUTOM4TE_CACHE_PATH}/<application-version>.
|> > }
|> > } For the purposes of the above paragraph the term exists also implies
|> > } user readable and user writable.
|> > }
|> > Of course, you run into the problem of having multiple packages you're
|> > developing on the same machine and they're using the same
|> > ${TMP}/autom4te.cache/ directory....
|>
|> I suppose I should have mentioned that <application-version> is a
|> directory named after the application being autoconfed. I also should
|> have called it <package-version>. So if I have package foo-1.0 then the
|> cache directory would be one of
|>
|> /var/tmp/autom4te.cache/foo-1.0
|> /tmp/autom4te.cache/foo-1.0
|> ./autom4te.cache/foo-1.0
|> ${AUTOM4TE_CACHE_PATH}/foo-1.0
This will break down if you have multiple version of the foo-1.0 package,
eg for testing purpose. Or if two people on the same machine are working
on separate copies of the foo-1.0 package.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
