On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> 2012年3月21日9:32 NightStrike :
dist_bin_SCRIPTS = aaa
>>>
>>> That's going to distribute "aaa", though, right, not the actual
>>> "source" e.g. aaa.sh?
>>
>> Yes. There's an earlier email in this thread from somebody
>> illustrating that yo
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes. There's an earlier email in this thread from somebody
>> illustrating that you don't need to morph from source to script if the
>> file doesn't actually get changed.
>
>
> How will Micr
2012年3月21日9:32 NightStrike :
>>> dist_bin_SCRIPTS = aaa
>>
>> That's going to distribute "aaa", though, right, not the actual
>> "source" e.g. aaa.sh?
>
> Yes. There's an earlier email in this thread from somebody
> illustrating that you don't need to morph from source to script if the
> file does
Yes, and you also don't need to worry about DIST if you are using a .in
file and letting config.status (via configure) do the substituting.
H
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, NightStrike wrote:
Yes. There's an earlier email in this thread from somebody
illustrating that you don't need to morph from source to script if the
file doesn't actually get changed.
How will Microsoft Windows File Manager and KDE's Dolphin know how to
open the proper p
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> 2012年3月21日8:33 NightStrike :
>>> "bin_SCRIPTS" doesn't actually seem to do much of anything -- you
>>> still have to add your own rules to handle all the actual work, need
>>> to fiddle with EXTRA_DIST and CLEANFILES, etc. Indeed, doing what I
2012年3月21日8:33 NightStrike :
>> "bin_SCRIPTS" doesn't actually seem to do much of anything -- you
>> still have to add your own rules to handle all the actual work, need
>> to fiddle with EXTRA_DIST and CLEANFILES, etc. Indeed, doing what I
>
> You can avoid hacking EXTRA_DIST if you change your p
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Harlan Stenn writes:
>> What's the problem with bin_SCRIPTS?
>
> Hmm, I didn't know about it, but ... reading the documentation,
> "bin_SCRIPTS" doesn't actually seem to do much of anything -- you
> still have to add your own rules to handle a
On 2012-03-20 16:01 +0200, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 15:47, Nick Bowler wrote:
[...]
> > SUFFIXES = .sh
> >
> > .sh:
> > $(shbin_verbose) cp $< $@.tmp
> > $(AM_V_at) chmod +x $@.tmp
> > $(AM_V_at) mv -f $@.tmp $@
> >
>
> Why do not use install(1) in
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:18, Miles Bader wrote:
> Harlan Stenn writes:
>> What's the problem with bin_SCRIPTS?
>
> Hmm, I didn't know about it, but ... reading the documentation,
> "bin_SCRIPTS" doesn't actually seem to do much of anything -- you
> still have to add your own rules to handle all
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 15:47, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2012-03-20 07:00 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
>> Is there a recommended way for dealing with binaries that are simple
>> shell scripts in automake? I currently use something like the
>> following:
>>
>> bin_PROGRAMS = myprog
>>
>> myprog_S
On 2012-03-20 07:00 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Is there a recommended way for dealing with binaries that are simple
> shell scripts in automake? I currently use something like the
> following:
>
>bin_PROGRAMS = myprog
>
>myprog_SOURCES = myprog.sh
>myprog: myprog.sh
>
>%: %.sh
12 matches
Mail list logo
