Newbie Request for Help (make dist problem)

2003-12-04 Thread J. Scott Amort
Hello All, I am relatively new to the autoconf, automake, libtool tools, and am converting a project over to using them. I have a question relating to creating a proper Makefile.am to run a 'make dist' from, and although I have read through the online manuals numerous times, I can't quite figure

Re: Desired feature

2003-12-04 Thread Eric Siegerman
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:25:54AM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > ~AM_LDFLAGS = everything gets these > ~noinst_LTLIBRARIES_LDFLAGS = these are for convenience libs > ~lib_LTLIBRARIES_LDFLAGS = these are for other libtool libs > ~libm4_la_LDFLAGS = but I can override non module lib

Re: Desired feature

2003-12-04 Thread Bruce Korb
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > I would be happy if I could do this: > I tend to disagree with you on this point. I will agree if the system > has three levels plus a way to provide overrides.. > > Automake should support > > o inheritance of sta

Re: Desired feature

2003-12-04 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bob Friesenhahn wrote: | Automake should support | | o inheritance of standard configure flags LDFLAGS | o flags common across all targets AM_LDFLAGS | o additional flags common to a grouping of targets dir_PRIMARY_LDFLAGS | o additional fl

Re: Desired feature

2003-12-04 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > Actually, now that you point it out, I would hit that problem myself, since m4 > has normal _LTLIBRARIES, noinst_LTLIBRARIES and modules. I would be happy if > I could do this: > > ~AM_LDFLAGS = everything gets these > ~noinst_LTLIBRARIES_LDFL

Re: [MAD SCIENCE EXPERIMENT]: Replace some libtool functionality with handcoded C

2003-12-04 Thread Mohan Embar
Hi Alexandre, >I'm not all that surprised your C program is much faster that the >shell script. For starters, it fails to support all of libtool's >configure-time options, such as --disable-static, --disable-shared, >--with-pic, as well as their per-compilation equivalent command-line >flags. I

Re: [MAD SCIENCE EXPERIMENT]: Replace some libtool functionalitywith handcoded C

2003-12-04 Thread Bruce Korb
Mohan Embar wrote: > > Hi Alexandre, > > >I'm not all that surprised your C program is much faster that the > >shell script. For starters, it fails to support all of libtool's > >configure-time options, such as --disable-static, --disable-shared, > >--with-pic, as well as their per-compilation e

automake and i18n

2003-12-04 Thread Guido Flohr
Hi, beginning with version 0.13, GNU gettext has full support for Perl scripts, with libintl-perl (http://search.cpan.org/dist/libintl-perl/) there is a stable runtime environment for gettext like message translation in Perl, and with yours truly there is somebody available that would voluntee

Re: Desired feature

2003-12-04 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: | On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 08:49:04AM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: | |>It would be great to have `LT_LDFLAGS = -module', rather than 15 lines of |>`foo_LDFLAGS = -module' in a future m4 Makefile.am :-) | | | Regarding M4: las

Re: Desired feature

2003-12-04 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 08:49:04AM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > It would be great to have `LT_LDFLAGS = -module', rather than 15 lines of > `foo_LDFLAGS = -module' in a future m4 Makefile.am :-) Regarding M4: last time I checked you had a directory dedicated to modules. Why don't you simply

Re: Desired feature

2003-12-04 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:24:11 -0600 (CST), "Bob Friesenhahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > It would be useful if Automake supported a set of options (e.g. > LDFLAGS) which are applied only when building libraries or when > building programs. It is excessively painful to have to add > per-target _LDFL