Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Akim Demaille writes:
>
> > In fact, I think all the tools should provide some --clean. For
> > instance, the hair we have to clean the Texinfo related files have
> > nothing to do in Automake. It should be provided by texi2dvi and the
> > like.
>
> But where does
> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:41:50 -0800
> From: Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Clearly, one would also want cp --clean.
"rm --clean" would be far more useful. I've often wanted that,
usually right after I've removed the wrong thing.
(Sorry, Akim, couldn't resist)
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The average user won't know this. Subsequent recursive targets called
> from the top-level will now fail due to the missing Makefile, so it
> seems of dubious value to me too.
Not all distclean targets remove the Makefile. Not all of us use
Automake.
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It imposes quite some complications to maintain this possibility, and
> I'm not sure it's good. In addition, the semantics of distclean in a
> subdirectory being so fuzzy (to my eyes), that making it valid only in
> a top level directory seems reasonab
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In fact, I think all the tools should provide some --clean. For
> instance, the hair we have to clean the Texinfo related files have
> nothing to do in Automake. It should be provided by texi2dvi and the
> like.
Respectively, I think you're significa
Akim Demaille writes:
> In fact, I think all the tools should provide some --clean. For
> instance, the hair we have to clean the Texinfo related files have
> nothing to do in Automake. It should be provided by texi2dvi and the
> like.
But where does it stop? gcc --clean? ld --clean? touch
Akim Demaille writes:
> And, as far as Automake goes, I don't think I'm making things worse to
> its non-users. Nothing changes for them.
Possibly true, but try to keep a clean separation between Autoconf and
Automake. Autoconf shouldn't have to know about removing files and such
things. Just
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 12:39:00PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> It's OK with me if "make distclean" in a subdirectory is equivalent to
> "make clean", and you need to do "make distclean" at the top level to
> clean out all the stuff built by "configure" at the top level. This
> sounds to me like t
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> [...] would it be grave that this subdir distclean
> triggers the top level's distclean.
It would be grave indeed:
- Principle of least surprise: I for one would be *very*
surprised if "make distclean" in a subdirectory start
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 02 Apr 2002 18:57:05 +0200
>
> it makes no sense at all the distclean a single directory, as anyway you
> need to rerun config.status to re-enable this directory. Of course,
> knowledgeable people will answer that ./config.status foo/Makefile
> d
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> That's really my question. But does it really matter? I mean, it
> makes no sense at all the distclean a single directory, as anyway you
> need to rerun config.status to re-enable this directory. Of course,
> knowledgeable people
> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> If you do it in "configure", you can successfully run "make
Paul> distclean" on one host, even for a build that was done on a
Paul> different kind of host. If I understand things correctly, under
Paul> the proposed design "config.stat
Title: 0505-¼Ò°³ b3
º¯Ä¡¾Ê´Â ³» °³¼º¹øÈ£!
µ·µµ
¹ö´Â Æò»ý¹øÈ£ °¡ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. 0505-XXX-
http://www.urimaul.org/0505number/
(Ŭ¸¯!)Çà¿îÀÇ À̺¥Æ®µµ
ÁøÇàÁßÀÌ¿¹¿ä. ÁÁÀº ±âȸ ³õÄ¡Áö ¸¶¼¼¿ä!
ÀÌ»çÇϰųª Á÷Àå/ºÎ¼
À̵¿ÇÏ¸é ¸Å¹ø ¹Ù²ï ÀüȹøÈ£¸¦ ¾Ë¸®±â°¡ ³Ê¹«
Èûµå½ÃÁÒ?ÇÚµåÆù ¹øÈ£ ¹Ù²Ù°í ½ÍÀºµ¥ ¾
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> Another thing to think about is whether autoconf will ever have
Tom> files removed by `maintainer-clean' (or any other clean rule).
Tom> If so that will affect what we decide.
In fact, I think all the tools should provide some --clean.
i am using
automake 1.6
autoconf 2.53
libtool 1.4b
on
hpux 10.20.
i would like build a static and a dynamic library from the same sources. but
when automake runs i got follow messages:
automake: src/Makefile.am: object `rpxcmd.lo' created both with libtool and
without
automake: src/Makefil
15 matches
Mail list logo
