- Original Message -
From: "Tom Tromey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: make dist and BUILT_SOURCES
> > "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>
> >> Were they also listed in another foo_SOURCES variable?
> >> That would cause them to end up in the dist.
>
> Robert>
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Tromey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: nearly there... yet another question first
> > "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Robert> Why doesn't it install compile in the top_srcdir?
>
> The code that decides where to find these pro
I accidentally made the patch backwards, but it should
still work. ;)
Tom Tromey wrote:
>
> > "Raja" == Raja R Harinath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Raja> Whoops. I forgot all about that. I was thinking of
> Raja> foo.o bar.o: %.o: %.h; ...
>
> Multiple ":"s can appear on a line wh
> "Raja" == Raja R Harinath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raja> Whoops. I forgot all about that. I was thinking of
Raja> foo.o bar.o: %.o: %.h; ...
Multiple ":"s can appear on a line when using Windows, too.
Raja> Anyway, we are getting off-topic :-) The 'sed' rule under
Raja> question is
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> I'd be happy to clean this, but there is already quite a few
Akim> patches in the queue :( TODO?
Send in a PR.
Tom
> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Were they also listed in another foo_SOURCES variable?
>> That would cause them to end up in the dist.
Robert> Yes they were. I didn't know you could do
Robert> BUILT_foo_SOURCES. I'll try rearranging the targets like that
Robert> a
> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> Now automake --foreign in the root of the source tree (uhmm,thats
Robert> ../../../../../ ) complains about a missing compile
Robert> script. --add-missing installs compile in the leaf branch.
Robert> Commenting out the _CFLAGS
"Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:36:48PM -0500, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> : The following patch fixes a problem with CVS autoconf, if a recent
> : enough CVS snapshot of automake was used on it.
>
> This is my proposal. @PACKAGE doesn't seem to be needed.
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:32:02PM -0500, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> > Well -- the whole idea is to remove the rule targets. I know of only
> > one use of multiple colons on a line -- in GNU make. Even there,
> > everything before a ':' is a rule target.
Thomas Dickey wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:32:02PM -0500, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> > Well -- the whole idea is to remove the rule targets. I know of only
> > one use of multiple colons on a line -- in GNU make. Even there,
> > everything before a ':' is a rule target. My comment "limi
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 08:14:28AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
: Good idea. Please check it in, this is sufficiently obviously-correct
: to not require a second approval.
Applied.
Lars J
On Apr 6, 2001, "Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:36:48PM -0500, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> : Hi,
> :
> : The following patch fixes a problem with CVS autoconf, if a recent
> : enough CVS snapshot of automake was used on it.
> This is my proposal.
Good idea
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:36:48PM -0500, Raja R Harinath wrote:
: Hi,
:
: The following patch fixes a problem with CVS autoconf, if a recent
: enough CVS snapshot of automake was used on it.
This is my proposal. @PACKAGE doesn't seem to be needed.
Lars J
Index: Makefile.am
==
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:36:48PM -0500, Raja R Harinath wrote:
: Hi,
:
: The following patch fixes a problem with CVS autoconf, if a recent
: enough CVS snapshot of automake was used on it.
:
: The problem is that 'automake' now depends on the AC_SUBSTs in
: AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE to subst in VERS
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 08:01:19AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
: 2) I don't understand why there is a fundamental difference between
: _PROGRAMS (allows configure substitutions both directly and indirectly
: ($(CONFGSUBSTVAR)) and _SOURCES which doesn't.
: - Working on the principle of least surp
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:32:02PM -0500, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> Well -- the whole idea is to remove the rule targets. I know of only
> one use of multiple colons on a line -- in GNU make. Even there,
> everything before a ':' is a rule target. My comment "limited to the
> first ':'" may not
16 matches
Mail list logo
