hi
actually i want to compile(ie cross compile mutt) with mb-gcc(for the
microblaze processor and uclinux OS) instead of gcc.
so by studying the documentation of autoconf, i started by
(1) adding AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM in configure.in
(2) adding AC_TRY_RUN(mb-gcc) in configure.in
(3) adding AC_
hi
actually i want to compile(ie cross compile mutt) with mb-gcc(for the
microblaze processor and uclinux OS) instead of gcc.
so by studying the documentation of autoconf, i started by
(1) adding AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM in configure.in
(2) adding AC_TRY_RUN(mb-gcc) in configure.in
(3) adding AC_
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:45:28PM -0800, David Wuertele wrote:
> Now, I happen to know that my compiler works, and I would like to
> avoid as much BS as possible. Can anyone tell me how to bypass this
> check, or at least insert a definition of AC_TRY_COMPILER() into my
> aclocal.m4 file so that
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > it from their package system) or you have to embed this knowledge in
| > autoconf, which seems bad and would only work for a few tools in
|
| So where does it go, then? People have sai
I'm trying to rebuild a toolchain from source I got from a vendor.
The vendor is now Kaput, but I'm trying to use their ancient makefiles
to build the toolchain. Included in the source is a highly patched
glibc-2.2.4 source RPM, and their makefile invokes rpmbuild -ba on
that source RPM. One of t
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should dependency-name be a package or a desired feature, which the
> suggested package(s) support?
A feature, obviously. But I don't see the need for dependency-name in
the first place. I think it won't work in practice -- actual
dependen
On 4-Mar-2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > it from their package system) or you have to embed this knowledge in
| > autoconf, which seems bad and would only work for a few tools in
|
| So where does it go, then? People have said not to put it in a text
| file, becau
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 4-Mar-2005, Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| My idea was to have AC_MSG_NEED with args
|(@var{dependency-name}, @var{dependency-text}, @ovar{priority})
| used like
|
I think I understand why you want these kinds of messages. There have
On 2-Mar-2005, Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| The root of all evil is the obsolete AC_TRY_LINK macro.
| Use the newer macros, which don't double-quote:
|
| AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([], [])],
| [ACTION-IF-TRUE], [ACTION-IF-FALSE])
Yes, this works. But in the docum
On 4-Mar-2005, Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| My idea was to have AC_MSG_NEED with args
|(@var{dependency-name}, @var{dependency-text}, @ovar{priority})
| used like
|
| AC_MSG_NEED([flex],
| [Get the latest version of lex from ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/flex/.])
|
| Which would disp
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Stepan Kasal wrote:
Hi,
thanks. I'll make a few comments, but we should wait for Paul's
Well, you'd reduced it to something manageable, so thank you.
opinion, it's more important than mine.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:16:08PM +, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
+Display a m
Hi,
thanks. I'll make a few comments, but we should wait for Paul's
opinion, it's more important than mine.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:16:08PM +, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
> +Display a message when @code{AC_OUTPUT} is called.
The node describing AC_OUTPUT should be changed, too. We
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Stepan Kasal wrote:
Hello Hugh,
Thank you for your helpful comments. How is this, below?
Hugh
--- ./autoconf.texi-1.880.orig 2005-03-02 10:35:08.489794000 +
+++ ./autoconf.texi-1.880 2005-03-04 13:06:47.185023000 +
@@ -7645,8 +7645,15 @@
@section Printin
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:40:33PM -0300, Hema K wrote:
>
> i am not able to figure out as to why automake is not working.
Because your 6-year-old version does not understand the new constructs
that have been introduced in this century. Upgrade.
___
A
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:40:33PM -0300, Hema K wrote:
> the following is present in configure.in
>
> AC_CONFIG_FILES([Makefile intl/Makefile [...]
> AC_CONFIG_FILES([Makefile])
OK, in this case there is no need to repeat. The first AC_CONFIG_FILES
is enough.
One more wild guess: is i
Hello Hugh,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:38:54PM +, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
> >>>"I suggest you to install package foo, which can be grabbed from foo.org,
> >>>in order to proceed with this build."
> >>
> >>Ouch. That's not how I interpreted your output. Perhaps we should
> >>rethink
16 matches
Mail list logo
