Re: automake -vs- huge projects

2003-12-18 Thread Paul D. Smith
%% Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: tn> i think it would be cool if automake supported GNU make tn> specifically, creating GNUmakefile.in from GNUmakefile.am. a tn> GNUmakefile.am would imply some automake option "gnu-make-only", tn> while automake option "gnu-make" would crea

damassus keass

2003-12-18 Thread Alton Adair
Bank on savings of over 75% on New official USA FDA approved medications Click here now

Re: automake -vs- huge projects

2003-12-18 Thread Thien-Thi Nguyen
"Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: If you're willing to require GNU make then I'm quite confidant you could write automake as nothing more than a suite of GNU make macros and functions. I doubt there would be any need for code changes to GNU make at all. i think it would be

Re: automake -vs- huge projects

2003-12-18 Thread Paul D. Smith
%% Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> So, IMO, for being useful, you'd either have to extend make to accept >> the *.am-syntax or to reimplement make. bf> Exactly. The binary 'automake' would be a "plain make" which also bf> understands Automake syntax. bf> If a non-standa

Re: automake -vs- huge projects

2003-12-18 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 16:01, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Lars Hecking wrote: > > > > > > What about an automake option then to generate Makefiles for GNU make? > > > > How about a new binary 'automake' program that doesn't require a

new fda approved cialis

2003-12-18 Thread Carla Hannah
Save over 70% on New approved medications View our inventory

Re: automake -vs- huge projects

2003-12-18 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 17:49, Tom Tromey wrote: > The problem is, automake generates an explicit rule for each > compilation. Our resulting Makefile.in is nearly 9 megabytes. This > is really much too large -- compare to 200K with automake 1.4. For subdir-compilation/non-recursive Makefiles auto

Re: automake -vs- huge projects

2003-12-18 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 16:01, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Lars Hecking wrote: > > > > What about an automake option then to generate Makefiles for GNU make? > > How about a new binary 'automake' program that doesn't require an > external 'make' program at all? It would read the

Re: aclocal 1.8 no longer loads overridden macros

2003-12-18 Thread Jim Meyering
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andreas> With aclocal 1.8 you no longer get overridden standard > Andreas> autoconf macros loaded from local *.m4 files. > >> > >> I could not reproduce this (tried to redefine AC_PROG_CC > >> successfully). Can you send detailed instructions?

Re: HEAD test suite - 6 failures.

2003-12-18 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Robert> Are the following tests known to fail (on debian unstable): Nein, no tests are known to fail. What does VERBOSE=x say? -- Alexandre Duret-Lutz