On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 18:44 +0100, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 06:38:39PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > In both cases, a colon separated env. variable ACLOCAL_PATH would
> > > solve the problem neatly.
>
> > To work around this issue, you'd have to switch "ACLOCA
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 06:38:39PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > In both cases, a colon separated env. variable ACLOCAL_PATH would
> > solve the problem neatly.
> To work around this issue, you'd have to switch "ACLOCAL_PATH" depending
> on which directory you'd want to use.
this is wh
On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 17:44 +0100, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> Hello,
> node "Macro search path" describes several ways how one can tell aclocal
> where to search for macro files.
>
> Please consider the following scenario:
> /opt/gnome28 contains Gnome 2.8
> /opt/gnome210 contains Gnome 2
Hello,
node "Macro search path" describes several ways how one can tell aclocal
where to search for macro files.
Please consider the following scenario:
/opt/gnome28 contains Gnome 2.8
/opt/gnome210 contains Gnome 2.10
Then I sometimes want to search
/opt/gnome28/share/a
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 08:06:18PM +0100, Baurjan Ismagulov wrote:
> What I don't understand is why the manual states that AC_DEFINE_DIR does
> not conform with GNU codings standards.
>
> If I define DATADIR in CPPFLAGS, it is hard-coded into the binary, and
> the user can override the prefix duri
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 12:31:06PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > One more question: how do I define that "make" alone should build zzz,
> > and test1..testn should be built only when I do "make check"?
>
> Put them in check_PROGRAMS.
Wow, now I have Makefile.am exactly as I want it! Thanks mu
* Baurjan Ismagulov wrote on Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:39:58AM CET:
>
> One more question: how do I define that "make" alone should build zzz,
> and test1..testn should be built only when I do "make check"?
Put them in check_PROGRAMS.
Regards,
Ralf
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:26:36AM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Baurjan> Is there a way to specify that binaries should depend
> Baurjan> on the libraries they are linked with (i.e., that a
> Baurjan> general LDADD implies general DEPENDENCIES or
> Baurjan> generates the respective depe
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 10:05:51PM +0200, Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
> I'm not sure which one comes first. [...] I can just do
>
> foo.c : foo.h
> foo.c foo.h : ...
> if $(BUILD_THEM_FILES) foo.list foo.h foo.c; then \
> touch foo.c;
