"Kevin P. Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So the OP's question implied that his make program was not able to handle
> autoconf's Makefile... does this mean that autoconf is at fault here?
autoconf does not create any makefiles by itself.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PRO
Thanks for all of the responses everybody. I ended up installing GNU
Make, and it seemed to compile successfuly. I'm not sure if this was
the *correct* solution, but I wanted to make sure you all knew that it
did work now. As far as what was going on before... I have no clue.
Tony
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:54:15AM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> just seen far too many postings on various lists where
> people downloaded a package (all packages built with the autotools) and
> ran into problems when _not_ using GNU make.
FWIW, it's clear to me from reading the Automake lis
"Kevin P. Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mea culpa... I've just seen far too many postings on various lists
> where people downloaded a package (all packages built with the
> autotools) and ran into problems when _not_ using GNU make.
This is often the case. For all of us that only have
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>
> Mea culpa... I've just seen far too many postings on various lists where
> people downloaded a package (all packages built with the autotools) and
> ran into problems when _not_ using GNU make.
>
> So the OP's question implied that his make program wa
ScanMail has removed an attachment during a real-time scan of the mail traffic.
Date: 03/06/2004 01:27:21 PM
Subject: error
Virus:
File: image.htm.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@DKSH
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc: Marian Puertollano
Action: Blocked by Filter Rules;
Scanned by ScanMail fo
