Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, K. Richard Pixley wrote: I'm on Ubuntu, not dos. It's source code control, (perforce, cvs, subversion), that has a different idea of how time stamps should be handled than automake does. It tends to think that the last mod time of a file should be the time the file was la

Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, K. Richard Pixley wrote: Bob Proulx wrote: Are we talking about one of your own projects? Or are we talking about other projects that you are trying to build? Projects that I'm trying to build. Hundreds of them. Projects that won't be fixed in the

Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, K. Richard Pixley wrote: Bob Proulx wrote: Are we talking about one of your own projects? Or are we talking about other projects that you are trying to build? Projects that I'm trying to build. Hundreds of them. Projects that won't be fixed in their current incarnation

Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

Bob Proulx wrote: Are we talking about one of your own projects? Or are we talking about other projects that you are trying to build? Projects that I'm trying to build. Hundreds of them. Projects that won't be fixed in their current incarnations even if we correct automake now. It'll tak

Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

Are we talking about one of your own projects? Or are we talking about other projects that you are trying to build? K. Richard Pixley wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Someone who is simply building from the generated Makefiles never > > needs to have automake installed. Only a developer who is > >

Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

"K. Richard Pixley" wrote: > even be interested in regenerationg Makefile.in's automagically. As is, > typical builders, (ie, not maintainers), are required to install > automake in order to build packages requiring automake. I think you're generalizing this to a degree that's not the case. Mos

Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

Robert Collins wrote: On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 17:27 -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote: My question today is... is there any hope of bringing automake generated Makefiles back into line with the GNU coding standards so that these applications will work once again? Use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE i

Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

Bob Proulx wrote: K. Richard Pixley wrote: I notice that automake is currently generating Makefiles that violate the gnu coding conventions. Hmm... I don't think that automake violates the standards. In the normal case it is not required to have automake installed. Someone who is si

Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

K. Richard Pixley wrote: > I notice that automake is currently generating Makefiles that violate > the gnu coding conventions. Hmm... I don't think that automake violates the standards. In the normal case it is not required to have automake installed. Someone who is simply building from the ge

Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 17:27 -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote: > > My question today is... is there any hope of bringing automake > generated > Makefiles back into line with the GNU coding standards so that these > applications will work once again? Use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE in your package; this wi

Re: Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

"K. Richard Pixley" wrote: > My question today is... is there any hope of bringing automake generated > Makefiles back into line with the GNU coding standards so that these > applications will work once again? This is already supported, just add AM_MAINTAINER_MODE and the rules to rebuild generat

Automake violations of the gnu coding conventions

I notice that automake is currently generating Makefiles that violate the gnu coding conventions. Specifically, it's generating rules for rebuilding "Makefile" from "Makefile.in" and "Makefile.in" from "Makefile.am" which requires automake. And yet the gnu coding standards specify: The |

Re: Determine Data Root Directoy in code

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Does this help? > > > Cheers, > Ralf > Yeah! That helped alot. Thanks, Jeshua -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Determine-Data-Root-Directoy-in-code-tf3917223.ht