I really like the autogen.sh file that comes with most GNOME programs, and
steal it for many of my own programs. This sort of thing is quite useful
for people using tools like automake and autoconf.
Has there been any consideration of putting together a
"standard" autogen.sh script and including
Hi,
I would like to know how to set the debugging info when compiling and
linking files using the autoconf and automake tools. I have tried adding
the line:
CFLAGS = -g
in my Makefile.am and when I compile and link using make it shows up as:
gcc -g *.o etc
implying that the debugging info is
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 03:26:39PM -0400, Derek Robert Price wrote:
> Derek Robert Price wrote:
>
> > *.texinfo files in case anyone is interested. Both rules use makeinfo
> > so they shouldn't create any new dependencies and the input and output
>
> Excuse me. The PDF rule does use texi2dvi a
Derek Robert Price wrote:
> *.texinfo files in case anyone is interested. Both rules use makeinfo
> so they shouldn't create any new dependencies and the input and output
Excuse me. The PDF rule does use texi2dvi as well, but that seems to be
used in Automake generated `Makefile.in's already f
Here are several generic rules for creation of PDF and ASCII output from
*.texinfo files in case anyone is interested. Both rules use makeinfo
so they shouldn't create any new dependencies and the input and output
file sets are the same as for *.info files, except do a s/\.info$/.pdf/
or s/\.info
> From: Sascha Schumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:00:11 +0200 (CEST)
>
> '{}' can only be used portably, if it is a separate argument.
It's worse than that. Not only must '{}' be separate and not part of
any other argument, it must not be followed by another argument '
> I'm looking for information on the portability of find(1). Please,
> send me everything you know. In particular, I think I'm understanding
> that `{}' is portably replaced by the argument only when alone, i.e.,
> exactly
'{}' can only be used portable, if it is a separate argument.
A
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> Hi People!
>
> I'm looking for information on the portability of find(1). Please,
> send me everything you know. In particular, I think I'm understanding
> that `{}' is portably replaced by the argument only when alone, i.e.,
> exactly
>
> find ... {} ...
>
>
Hi People!
I'm looking for information on the portability of find(1). Please,
send me everything you know. In particular, I think I'm understanding
that `{}' is portably replaced by the argument only when alone, i.e.,
exactly
find ... {} ...
and not
find ... "foo: \{\}" ...
