Hi all,
Here is the description of a problem met with subversion and autotools.
If anybody has a clean solution, let me/us know:
1) I have a project using the autotools for the environment management.
2) The project compiles without any problem in the 'trunk' directory.
3) I have set up a tag with
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004, Eric PAIRE wrote:
> 3) I have set up a tag with 'svn copy' so that the tagged version is the
> exact
>copy of the version in the 'trunk' directory.
> 4) Another user gets the tagged version with a 'svn co' and runs 'configure'
>on it. And now ...
As it was once so elo
* Leonardo Boiko wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:50:11PM CET:
>
> Note that we usually build from the "build" subdirectory, not directly
> from top_srcdir, and that auxiliary files like "config.guess" are kept
> in "aux".
If you want to be portable to DOS systems, don't use "aux" as a name.
See
Hello Henrique,
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:13:45AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> "If you're doing that, you're weird. Go away".
>
> The translation for that would be: Why the heck are you keeping
> auto-generated files in a RCS system? Get them out of there, they do NOT
> belong i
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:13:45AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > "If you're doing that, you're weird. Go away".
> >
> > The translation for that would be: Why the heck are you keeping
> > auto-generated files in a RCS system? Get them ou
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 11:24:33AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> > I learned from that text how can autotools and CVS/svn combined.
> > Though I personally obey the rule ``no generated files in the RCS'',
> > I seriously considered the o
I already thought that this was the good solution, but I have always
been puzzled by
the fact that I never see it yet implemented (such as in gnu projects).
I agree on
everything, but you have to make these generated files ignored to your
versioning
system, and there should be a way to remove th
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 11:24:33AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Dec 2004, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> > > I learned from that text how can autotools and CVS/svn combined.
> > > Though I personally obey the rule ``no generated files in
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I will read it, I am curious about what it says that could have such a
strong effect on you. Maybe it can change my mind about the issue (but I
doubt it)...
OTOH I was convinced _not_ to keep autogenerated files in subversion
thanks to Henrique's README.Debian f
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004, Eric PAIRE wrote:
> everything, but you have to make these generated files ignored to your
> versioning
> system, and there should be a way to remove them easily.
Maybe one of the automake targets do a full cleanup, I never tried to track
that down. I never needed it. When
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Maybe one of the automake targets do a full cleanup, I never tried to track
that down. I never needed it.
Doesn't "make distclean" do that? But I too never needed it...
Anyway, I make sure to rm -f all autotools-generated files in the autogen.sh
script BEFORE I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A new version of the proposed AC_PROG_CC_C99 macro follows. It has
the following changes:
1. It puts the compiler into "C99 + extensions" mode in preference to
"strict C99" mode, but will try both.
2. I added AIX CC support (but can't test it myse
* Roger Leigh wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:44:41PM CET:
>
>
> # AC_PROG_CC_C99
> #
> # If the C compiler in not in ISO C99 C mode by default, try to add an
> # option to output variable @code{CC} to make it so. This macro tries
> # various options that select ISO C99 C on so
Roger Leigh wrote:
# Try
# GCC -std=gnu99 -std=c99 -std=iso9899:1999
# AIX -qlanglvl=extc99 -qlanglvl=stdc99
Here are a few more, gleaned from Google (not tested):
IRIX: -c99
(http://www.sgi.com/products/software/irix/tools/c.html,
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Is it considered better for the result of AC_PROG_CC_C99 to end up in
$CC or in $CFLAGS (I'm not really sure myself, just wondering)?
That is a very good question. Consider that these options may also
influence the C pre-processor and may even change whi
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Eric PAIRE wrote:
It this solution is so obvious, I don't understand why autotools
developers have not already set up a tool which automatically
removes the files generated by the autotools (perhaps this tool
exists and I don't know about).
It is called 'make maintainer-clean
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Is it considered better for the result of AC_PROG_CC_C99 to end up in
$CC or in $CFLAGS (I'm not really sure myself, just wondering)?
In $CC is what AC_PROG_CC_STDC (the AC_PROG_CC_C99 is clearly based on
AC_PROG_CC_STDC).
(Which begs the question: shouldn't AC_PROG_CC_STDC
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Add a run-this-on-checkout script and proper rules to the makefiles to run
> the autotools sequence if the autotools files are not yet available.
Shouldn't 'autoreconf' be the right answer to regenerate all of the
autotools files after a clean checkout? Isn't
"Steven G. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Which begs the question: shouldn't AC_PROG_CC_STDC be renamed to
> AC_PROG_CC_C89, for consistency?)
Yes, and AC_PROG_CC_STDC should refer to the best (typically, latest)
C standard. That is, AC_PROG_CC_STDC should attempt to set the
compiler in
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Steven G. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> (Which begs the question: shouldn't AC_PROG_CC_STDC be renamed to
>> AC_PROG_CC_C89, for consistency?)
>
> Yes, and AC_PROG_CC_STDC should refer to the best (typically, latest)
> C standard. That is, AC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Steven G. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
>> # Try
>> # GCC-std=gnu99 -std=c99 -std=iso9899:1999
>> # AIX-qlanglvl=extc99 -qlanglvl=stdc99
>
> Here are a few more, gleaned from
>>> "Stepan" == Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stepan> Hello Henrique,
Stepan> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:13:45AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
>> "If you're doing that, you're weird. Go away".
>>
>> The translation for that would be: Why the heck are you keeping
>>
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One change I've made is added arguments to AC_PROG_CC_C89,
> AC_PROG_CC_C89 and AC_PROG_CC_STDC to allow custom code to run on
> success or failure, to e.g. abort configure if there isn't a C99
> compiler available.
I'd rather avoid this complexity. Isn'
Hello Gary,
Gary Thomas wrote:
Bonjour, Eric :-)
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 04:38, Eric PAIRE wrote:
Hi all,
Here is the description of a problem met with subversion and autotools.
If anybody has a clean solution, let me/us know:
1) I have a project using the autotools for the environment management.
24 matches
Mail list logo
