DLLs)?
The easiest way would be for ./configure to find the C compiler and build
a simple utility binary from source, then use that for the rest of the
configuration.
--
Dean Povey, |em: [EMAIL PROTECTED]|JCSI: Java security toolkit
Wedgetail Communications|ph: +61 7 3023 5139
ake distcheck.
Can I add a big me too for this feature? I think this is a no-brainer and
I just ran across wanting to add this very recently.
--
Dean Povey, |em: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| JCSI: Java security toolkit
Senior S/W Developer |ph: +61 7 3864 5120| uPKI: Em
be handled as a special case.
2. The code as it stands seems to allow the following:
target: dependencies
# A comment here and some whitespace following
echo do something
While this is fine on GNU make, on BSD make you need to delete the
comment and the blank line from the res
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>
>> 3. Because of a stupidity in Tru64 make, automake displays
>>an error message if comments are found immediately after
>> the tab (plus
>>zero/more whitespace). I think perhaps a nicer approach
pproach just comments out the include directive if it is not
supported, which is fine for dependency tracking but not for doing a
general Makefile include mechanism. The code I submitted will actually
emulate include if it is not available. I didn't actually know about the
AM_ macro when I wrote
Firstly, apologies for the cross-posting, particularly giving the fact that
I am including code, but this message contains issues relevant to both
automake and autoconf.
For a while I have been thinking that it would be nice to be able to
support "include" in autoconf/automake Makefiles. Thi
way to do this. If not, what is the best way to
add it? I thought I could just hack something up so that if there is a file
called amlocal.mk in the build directory it is implicitly included (ala
aclocal.m4 in automake).
Any thoughts?
--
Dean Povey, | e-m: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
