>>> "Paul" == Paul Pogonyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Stepan Kasal wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:56:56PM +0200, Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
>> > because the generated sources are placed into the build directory,
>> > while `make' looks for them in the source directo
>>> "Baurjan" == Baurjan Ismagulov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Baurjan> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:27:25PM +0100, Nicolas Joly wrote:
>> > AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = dejagnu
>> > bin_PROGRAMS = zzz
>> > noinst_PROGRAMS = test1 test2 test3
>> > noinst_LTLIBRARIES = libzzz.la
>> > zzz_SOURCES = zzz.c
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:55:48PM -0400, Leonardo Boiko wrote:
> I don't want to talk about the GNU conformance because I have the same
> doubts as you :) but as for having a single file, I often have to
> do lots of tests of things defined in config.h, so I usually need
> another header anyway.
Baurjan Ismagulov wrote:
I would ideally prefer to have a single configuration file, namely,
config.h.
I don't want to talk about the GNU conformance because I have the same
doubts as you :) but as for having a single file, I often have to
do lots of tests of things defined in config.h, so I usual
Stepan Kasal wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:56:56PM +0200, Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
> > because the generated sources are placed into the build directory,
> > while `make' looks for them in the source directory.
>
> generally, make should look for them in both places.
Yes, and it doe
[Taking the discussion to the autoconf list.]
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 09:57:31AM -0400, Leonardo Boiko wrote:
> Isn't config.h created at configure time? AFAIK directory installation
> variables should only be defined at make time. See
> ``info Autoconf "Installation Directory Variables"''.
I ha
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:27:25PM +0100, Nicolas Joly wrote:
> > AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = dejagnu
> > bin_PROGRAMS = zzz
> > noinst_PROGRAMS = test1 test2 test3
> > noinst_LTLIBRARIES = libzzz.la
> > zzz_SOURCES = zzz.c
> > libzzz_la_SOURCES = a/a.c b/b.c
> > AM_CFLAGS = -g -Wall -std=c99 -I$(top_srcdir
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:27:25PM +0100, Nicolas Joly wrote:
> > 2. More importantly, I can't build the project any more: make
> >immediately dives into testsuite/, files under which require
> >libzzz.la, which is going to be built later. If I "make libzzz.la
> >all", everything works
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 04:49:11PM +0100, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> for each AC_SUBSTed variable, automake adds a line like
>
> ZZZ_LIBS = @ZZZ_LIBS@
>
> so there is generally no need to use the @...@ notation in Makefile.am.
Yes, thanks for the info! I've replaced all @...@ references with
$(
Hello,
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:56:56PM +0200, Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
> because the generated sources are placed into the build directory,
> while `make' looks for them in the source directory.
generally, make should look for them in both places.
Let me point out several problems:
> BUILT_SOU
I approached the Libtool maintainers with this request, who convinced me that
Automake was the right place to implement this. I would like Automake-generated
Makefiles to pass --quiet to libtool when make is invoked with -s.
At present, even when compiling with make -s, libtool echoes the commands
Hi.
I'm currently massaging my `Makefile.am's to allow building in a
separate directory. However, I have a problem which I cannot find
how to solve.
I have a few source (`.c' and `.h') files which are generated at
build time from another source using a custom utility. When the
build directory i
12 matches
Mail list logo
