ÄãºÃ£¡
×öΪÄã×îºÃµÄÅóÓÑ£¬ÇëÄãÒ»¶¨¿´Íê¡£Good luck to you.
×îÐÂÃâ·Ñ׬Ǯ¹«Ë¾--NitroClicks(»ð±¬Óʼþ, ¼ò³ÆNC)!
NCÊÇÒ»¼Ò×îеÄÊÕÓʼþ׬Ǯ¹«Ë¾, Ãâ·Ñ×¢²á, ¶øÇÒ×¢²á¾Í°×ËÍ$10ÃÀÔª (80ÔªÈËÃñ±Ò)!Õâ
ƪÎÄÕ¿ÉÄÜÊÇÄãÃüÔ˵Äת»ú£¬ÇëÂýÂýµØ¶Á¡£
µ«ÇëǧÍò²»Òª°ÑËüºÍÒÔÇ°ÆäËûµÄ´ËÀ๫˾ÏàÌá²¢ÂÛ! NCÊÇÖÁ½ñΪֹ¸¶·Ñ¶î×î¸ßµÄÊÕ
| Akim Demaille wrote:
| >
| > The Autoconf team is extremely pleased to announce Autoconf 2.53. We
| > hope it will address your problems, and make your life easier.
|
| FWIW, the following inbred-style of installation on a GNU/Linux i686 box
| (RH7.1) works fine for 2.52 and countless other
> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jonathan> I am going to do some work on a package that uses autoconf
Jonathan> scripts (but not automake) and I need to make some changes
Jonathan> to the configure.in file.
sources.redhat.com/autobook/
Jonathan> Is there a good tu
Title: Untitled
¼½½º ´©µå ¸ðµ¨ »çÁø 1000¿©Á¡À» 100% ¹«·á·Î º¸¿©µå¸³´Ï´Ù.
¾î¶°ÇÑ °¡ÀÔºñ³ª ȸºñ¸¦ ¹ÞÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù.
(Çϸ®¼ö ´©µå, ºñºñ¾È½´ ´©µå, ¿©°í»ý ´©µå, ·ù¹Ì¿À ´©µå, ¿Ü±¹ ¼½½º ´©µå ¸ðµ¨ »çÁø µî...)
http://wxynude.com.ne.kr
[º» »çÀÌÆ®´Â ±¤°íºñ·Î ¿î¿µµË´Ï´Ù. Àý´ë ȸºñ¸¦
¹ÞÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. 100%
Ossama Othman wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:31:33PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > In theory, sure. However, I've never seen anyone do anything
> > fancy in the 'if-cross-compiling' case but pick a default.
>
> In practice, I have done exactly what I suggested in ACE's configu
Title: 0505-¼Ò°³ b3
º¯Ä¡¾Ê´Â ³» °³¼º¹øÈ£!
µ·µµ
¹ö´Â Æò»ý¹øÈ£ °¡ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. 0505-XXX-
http://www.urimaul.org/0505number/
(Ŭ¸¯!)Çà¿îÀÇ À̺¥Æ®µµ
ÁøÇàÁßÀÌ¿¹¿ä. ÁÁÀº ±âȸ ³õÄ¡Áö ¸¶¼¼¿ä!
ÀÌ»çÇϰųª Á÷Àå/ºÎ¼
À̵¿ÇÏ¸é ¸Å¹ø ¹Ù²ï ÀüȹøÈ£¸¦ ¾Ë¸®±â°¡ ³Ê¹«
Èûµå½ÃÁÒ?ÇÚµåÆù ¹øÈ£ ¹Ù²Ù°í ½ÍÀºµ¥ ¾
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> Another thing to think about is whether autoconf will ever have
Tom> files removed by `maintainer-clean' (or any other clean rule).
Tom> If so that will affect what we decide.
In fact, I think all the tools should provide some --clean.
> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> If you do it in "configure", you can successfully run "make
Paul> distclean" on one host, even for a build that was done on a
Paul> different kind of host. If I understand things correctly, under
Paul> the proposed design "config.stat
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> That's really my question. But does it really matter? I mean, it
> makes no sense at all the distclean a single directory, as anyway you
> need to rerun config.status to re-enable this directory. Of course,
> knowledgeable people
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 02 Apr 2002 18:57:05 +0200
>
> it makes no sense at all the distclean a single directory, as anyway you
> need to rerun config.status to re-enable this directory. Of course,
> knowledgeable people will answer that ./config.status foo/Makefile
> d
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> [...] would it be grave that this subdir distclean
> triggers the top level's distclean.
It would be grave indeed:
- Principle of least surprise: I for one would be *very*
surprised if "make distclean" in a subdirectory start
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 12:39:00PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> It's OK with me if "make distclean" in a subdirectory is equivalent to
> "make clean", and you need to do "make distclean" at the top level to
> clean out all the stuff built by "configure" at the top level. This
> sounds to me like t
Akim Demaille writes:
> And, as far as Automake goes, I don't think I'm making things worse to
> its non-users. Nothing changes for them.
Possibly true, but try to keep a clean separation between Autoconf and
Automake. Autoconf shouldn't have to know about removing files and such
things. Just
Akim Demaille writes:
> In fact, I think all the tools should provide some --clean. For
> instance, the hair we have to clean the Texinfo related files have
> nothing to do in Automake. It should be provided by texi2dvi and the
> like.
But where does it stop? gcc --clean? ld --clean? touch
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In fact, I think all the tools should provide some --clean. For
> instance, the hair we have to clean the Texinfo related files have
> nothing to do in Automake. It should be provided by texi2dvi and the
> like.
Respectively, I think you're significa
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It imposes quite some complications to maintain this possibility, and
> I'm not sure it's good. In addition, the semantics of distclean in a
> subdirectory being so fuzzy (to my eyes), that making it valid only in
> a top level directory seems reasonab
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The average user won't know this. Subsequent recursive targets called
> from the top-level will now fail due to the missing Makefile, so it
> seems of dubious value to me too.
Not all distclean targets remove the Makefile. Not all of us use
Automake.
> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:41:50 -0800
> From: Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Clearly, one would also want cp --clean.
"rm --clean" would be far more useful. I've often wanted that,
usually right after I've removed the wrong thing.
(Sorry, Akim, couldn't resist)
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Akim Demaille writes:
>
> > In fact, I think all the tools should provide some --clean. For
> > instance, the hair we have to clean the Texinfo related files have
> > nothing to do in Automake. It should be provided by texi2dvi and the
> > like.
>
> But where does
19 matches
Mail list logo
