Hi Eric,
That could well be a far better approach. I am not sure how to perform cross platform builds, especially taking into account the interesting platform uniqueness such as codepage etc. I have not used the 'make dist' argument before, but it would prerequisite that I chose the appropriate configure and make arguments to compile for the platform I am targeting.....thoughts? I am not even sure of the official 'name' of the system I am targeting? s390? omvs? To be clear, I am targeting USS on zSystems, not Linux on z. Thoughts? Best practices? Andy ________________________________ From: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> Sent: 30 May 2018 18:01 To: Andy Armstrong; automake@gnu.org Subject: Re: automake compile problems On 05/30/2018 11:12 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote: > To give some context to what I am doing, here is the timeline: > > > I did have Automake version 1.10, but my ultimate goal here is to compile the > nano text editor, which requires at least automake 1.15 and autoconf 2.69. That's if you are modifying the source files and actually developing nano on your mainframe. But what's wrong with the (often simpler) approach of using a more typical development box, probably using GNU/Linux, with modern autotools already installed, and running 'make dist' on the nano package there, then copying the tarball over? Once you've done that, './configure && make' should work without requiring either automake or autoconf installed on the mainframe. After all, the point of the autotools is to build self-contained tarballs that no longer require the presence of the autotools. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
