On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:52:05 +0100
Zé wrote:
> The configure.in file starts off with this:
>
> # Autoconf script
>
> AC_PREREQ(2.61)
>
> m4_define([MAJOR_VERSION], [1])
> m4_define([MINOR_VERSION], [0])
> m4_define([PATCH_VERSION], [0])
>
> AC_INIT(foo,[MAJOR_VERSION.MINOR_VERSION.PATCH_VERSI
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:55:53 +0100
Zé wrote:
> So, it appears that defining the VERSION variable ends up replacing
> the VERSION string in the output with the definition provided by the
> newly added m4_define() line.
I thought there might be a conflict. Try:
m4_define([APP_MAJOR_VERSION], [1])
I have just added an article to my blog on my programming language
about the GNU AutoTools. Please feel free to comment.
http://kori-programming-language.blogspot.ca/2014/09/a-closer-look-at-gnu-autotools.html
--
Don't stop where the ink does.
Shawn
___
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:33:13 -0400
Nick Bowler wrote:
> Can you be more constructive? I think Autoconf and Automake have
> rather good manuals[1][2]. Why are they crappy? How can we make
> them better?
>
> [1] https://gnu.org/s/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html
> [2] https://gnu.org/s/automake/man
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:55:27 -0400
Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2014-09-04 17:00 -0400, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:33:13 -0400
> > Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > Can you be more constructive? I think Autoconf and Automake have
> > > rather good manuals[
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:12:32 -0700
Paul Eggert wrote:
> The manuals can be improved, and a good way to improve them is to
> propose specific patches, in 'git diff' format. Merely complaining
> about them will probably not be an effective use of your time.
Patronizing novices might make you fe
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 00:36:11 +0200
Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
> at least with autotools there are alternative documentation sources:
>
> * the good old "Goats Book" which is also available online, and seems
> to have received an update lately:
>
> https://www.sourceware.org/autobook/autobo
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:40:40 -0600
"John Calcote" wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: autoconf-bounces+john.calcote=gmail@gnu.org
> > [mailto:autoconf-bounces+john.calcote=gmail....@gnu.org] On Behalf
> > Of Shawn H Corey
> > Sent: Thu
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:52:58 -0700
Paul Eggert wrote:
> I expect them to make constructive and specific suggestions, which
> have been in short supply in this thread but which have occurred in
> the past and, I hope, the future.
>
I have made suggestions; they've been ignored.
> It's not like
I have created a work flow diagram of how to initialize a project. It
is in SVG, so your renderer may not get the fonts correct.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaGF3bmhjb3JleXxneDo1ZmI4OTE4ZGJkYzFlMDdj
--
Don't stop where the ink does.
Shawn
_
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:35:11 -0700
Paul Eggert wrote:
> That looks much nicer than what's in the Autoconf manual now. Some
> thoughts:
>
> With Firefox all I got from the above URL was a PNG image. I assume
> SVG is somewhere but it wasn't obvious where to get it.
Oops. I thought I posted bo
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:43:40 -0600
"John Calcote" wrote:
> I honestly don't get why you have a problem with this attitude in open
> source software. It's not a bad attitude - it's a natural attitude.
> You're trying to treat the Autotools as if a paid team of developers
> is working on it. If tha
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
"David A. Wheeler" wrote:
> I believe that the autoconf, automake, and libtool manuals are
> reasonable references, but are difficult for people who "just want to
> use it" for common simple cases and don't care about all the details.
I was thinking somet
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:40:20 -0600
"John Calcote" wrote:
> I guess I misunderstood. So help me understand - why send a message
> to the list stating how bad the manual is if you don't hope someone
> on the list will read your message and decide to update the manual
> accordingly? Isn't it reasona
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:55:45 -0600
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/25/2014 07:51 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > It may be that some users of 'autoconf' will be at risk due to the
> > dire bash security bug described at
> > "http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/24/bash_shell_vuln/";.
> >
> > Take care
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:53:14 -0600
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/25/2014 09:45 AM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:55:45 -0600
> > Eric Blake wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/25/2014 07:51 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >>> It may be that some user
16 matches
Mail list logo
