On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 08:35 -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi Stepan,
>
> On Monday 10 January 2005 06:00 am, Stepan Kasal wrote:
>
> > So it's usually enough to write
>
> > Well, I'd use
> >
> > if [some-shell-script-test]
> > then
> > ...
> > AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX], [true])
> > else
> >
Shaun Jackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks Stepan. I'm going to go with your latter suggestion, since it
> doesn't require modifying all the other Makefile.am. This seems like a
> rather arbitrary limitation of automake though. Is there any reason
> why the append operator shouldn't treat a
Hi Stepan,
On Monday 10 January 2005 06:00 am, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> So it's usually enough to write
> Well, I'd use
>
> if [some-shell-script-test]
> then
> ...
> AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX], [true])
> else
> ...
> AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX], [false])
> fi
This is more-or-less exactly what is
Hi.
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:20:57PM -0800, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> Is there any reason why the append operator shouldn't treat an
> undefined variable as empty?
Safety, I guess.
make handles variables differently from normal imperative languages,
so you can do this in your makefile:
a=$b c
b=
Hi
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 03:21:44PM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> [`some-shell-script-test`
> if test $? -eq 0
> then]
> AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX], [true])
> [else]
> AM_CONDITIONAL([XXX],[false])
> [fi]
one usually relies that `else', `fi', etc. are not m4 macros.
So it's usually enough to write
[so