On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
2) Whether to rename the above and reuse the names for the user (cleaner
interface but backward incompatible)? So the internal one's would be,
say,
am_RECURSIVE_TARGETS
am_RECURSIVE_CLEAN_TARGETS
am_ALL_RECURSIVE_TARGETS
I am not using these in m
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Ludovic (and others?) suggested a different approach for easier file
name handling in nonrecursive makefile setups: provide GNU make-like
substitution functions, such as addprefix. They could be expanded at
automake run time to still produce portable m
On 8/1/2010 2:11 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> So let me rephrase the question: if we have the ability to build
> completely with MSVC within a shell environment such as MinGW/MSYS
> would people still need something like nmake support?
Speaking for myself and my projects -- no, I would not.
Ludovic (and others?) suggested a different approach for easier file
name handling in nonrecursive makefile setups: provide GNU make-like
substitution functions, such as addprefix. They could be expanded at
automake run time to still produce portable makefiles.
I'm torn between this and my earlie
* Philip Herron wrote on Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 08:05:50PM CEST:
> This sounds amazing on one of my other projects i support a cmake
> build along side my autoconf and automake for everything that isn't
> windows lol.
So let me rephrase the question: if we have the ability to build
completely with M
On 31 July 2010 18:26, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Maybe if we have contents conditional on 'make' or 'nmake' output?
> Would that even help anybody? (no idea)
> Is there anybody willing to work on this?
This sounds amazing on one of my other projects i support a cmake
build along side my autoconf
On Sunday, August 1, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Sure. I have no idea yet how exactly this could work in
> practice. I don't know these tools yet. I'm just
> throwing out these ideas to see if somebody has good
> input.
>
> In such a project, is there any scripting besides CMD that
> one could r
Somebody suggested to me (was that you, Ludo?) that Automake should
really allow the user to easily add recursive targets.
This is fairly trivial to implement, the biggest complication is name
calling.
So, here's the deal: currently, Automake has
RECURSIVE_TARGETS
RECURSIVE_CLEAN_TARGETS
AM
* David Byron wrote on Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 07:25:16PM CEST:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > OK, so what if they are not actually running configure (or
> > would not actually need to)? Presumably automake could
> > produce a ready nmake file (or forbid, a vcproj) in at
>
On Saturday, July 31, 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * David Byron wrote on Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 10:41:29PM CEST:
>
> > If someone is running autotools (or even a generated
> > configure script) on windows, I think we can assume
> > they've either got cygwin or msys which implies access
> > to m
10 matches
Mail list logo
