On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 6:01 PM Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> The people who tell me it is more portable are very interested in
> targeting Microsoft Windows.
Introduce them to mingw-w64.sf.net + msys2 :) I heard good things
about those :P
> The "Makefiles" that Cmake generates are self-referential
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:44 PM Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2021, Karl Berry wrote:
> >
> > (*) https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2021-03/msg00018.html
> > So far the response has been nil.
>
> I don't recall seeing that email. I did see an email thread regarding
> Autoconf
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 5:34 AM Thomas Jahns wrote:
> > - Our code is a mix of Fortran and C, with a bit of C++. Automake still
> > deos not support Fortran 90-type module dependencies, so we have to manage
> > manual dependencies in one of our Makefile.am's. More modern systems handle
> > Fort
On Mar 7, 2018 16:05, "Mathieu Lirzin" wrote:
John Calcote writes:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> If you have any suggestions on documents I can read or software I can
check
>> to
>> prepare for this project I'll be glad to check them. I know texinfo is
>> written
>> in Perl and generates an AST so I'll ch
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Gavin Smith
wrote:
> On 25 February 2018 at 19:13, Jonas Thiem wrote:
> > Disclaimer: I haven't read this part of the docs myself. But for what
> > it's worth, I think Maude looks a bit like a misspelling of Make and
> > doesn't stick out that well, compared to
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:
> Hello,
>
>Currently Automake supports two ways of compiling Java code. One is
> with the 'javac' compiler which is deprecated on the Automake side, and
> the other (the recommanded one) which uses GCJ. Relying on GCJ feels
> outdated
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Václav Haisman wrote:
> On 18.8.2016 21:12, NightStrike wrote:
>> Can you undeprecate Java?
>>
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Java.html
>>
>> I know the support isn't perfect, but it is useful
Can you undeprecate Java?
https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Java.html
I know the support isn't perfect, but it is useful when you have a
large project that incorporates both Java and other languages, and you
want to keep yourself in the make world instead of having to have bo
Thanks!
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Philipp Thomas wrote:
> * NightStrike (nightstr...@gmail.com) [20160510 04:20]:
>
>
>> 1.15
>
> This has been fixed in git with commit
> 13f00eb4493c217269b76614759e452d8302955e :
>
> diff --git a/bin/automake.in b/bin/automa
1.15
On May 9, 2016 4:38 AM, "Philipp Thomas" wrote:
> * NightStrike (nightstr...@gmail.com) [20160506 18:50]:
> > With the latest automake on archi linux,
>
> Which is ('automake --version' tells you)?
>
> > I get this:
> > Unescaped left bra
With the latest automake on archi linux, I get this:
Unescaped left brace in regex is deprecated, passed through in regex;
marked by <-- HERE in m/\${ <-- HERE ([^ \t=:+{}]+)}/ at
/usr/bin/automake line 3936.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> We are pleased to announce the GNU Automake 1.14 minor release.
>
> This release comes with two important changes:
>
> 1. It introduces a new feature aimed at making the implementation
> of non-recursive build systems more convenie
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> This is a long-standing bug in our project and I've yet to figure out
> how to address it.
>
> The project is primarily a library that once installed has a "front end"
> installed in libdir and N "back ends" (linked by libtool with the
> '-m
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
> Hey
>
> In MSYS, the following code is not "silent" (sed_process is a sed command) :
>
>
> pc_verbose = $(pc_verbose_@AM_V@)
> pc_verbose_ = $(pc_verbose_@AM_DEFAULT_V@)
> pc_verbose_0 = @echo " PC " $@;
>
> etui.pc: $(top_srcdir)/etui
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> I should at this point decide whether just devote my "Automake time"
> to mainline Automake (which amounts at letting Automake-NG die,
> basically) or to Automake-NG (after tying some loose ends in the
> mainline Automake code base, of cou
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, David Boesner wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
>
> I'm working on a PAM module. Therefore it is necessary to create a shared
> object in
> /lib/security. That words fine. My problem is, that the .la file is also
> created next to the so file.
> That's why I would like to e
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 09/12/2012 17:32, NightStrike wrote:
>> It's not more fully documented elsewhere, though. AM_CPPFLAGS right
>> about it is, however, fully documented right in this section. This
>> should be fixed, since n
I was looking in the manual to see what the default definition of
AM_CFLAGS was. It's gone. Instead, all I see is this:
AM_CFLAGS
This is the variable the Makefile.am author can use to pass in
additional C compiler flags. It is more fully documented elsewhere. In
some situations, this is not use
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Peter Johansson wrote:
>>
>> Makefile.am [in topdir]. For those fragment files, it would probably be
>> confusing if paths were inserted into variables. Perhaps one could have a
>> switch to turn that feature on.
>
>
>
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I am looking for a good example of a project with non-recursive Make
> that is using Automake, that is not trivial. I would like to convert my
> project, log4cplus, to non-recursive Make style, if it is possible. Any
> recommendations
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> I suspect that this anaysis has been mentioned on the Automake list before
> but (if so) it is worth looking at again. It seems that few packages
> benefit significantly from parallel builds. Many packages use Automake, but
> they use it
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Couldn't you simply add a 'buil-tests' target that creates
>> all the programs in $(TESTS)? Something as simple as:
>>
>> build-tests: $(TESTS)
>>
>> Then run it on the build system, before running "make chec
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for your feedback. Much appreciated.
>
> It seems that merging libtool into Automake would be an unpopular move all
> around, with significant downsides for users, so I no longer plan to do
> that... unless there is a s
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 05:29 PM, Rudra Banerjee wrote:
>>
>> Yes,
>> I got some site on non-recursive automake.
>> But I have one more queries: I have 100+ routine in src/.
>> Do I need to enter ALL of them manually as automake do not like
>> wildcar
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Vincent Torri wrote:
> hey
>
> I want to delete the .la file installed by libtool (note that i don't
> want to discuss if it's reasonnable or not to delete these files)
>
> So, in my Makefile.am, I do:
>
> lib_LTLIBRARIES = libevil.la
> ...
> ...
> install-data-hoo
http://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/automake/manual/html_node/Optional.html
This link says that the canonical macros will make
build/host/target_triplet make variables available. What's the
difference between using for instance $target and $target_triplet?
Will they always be the same? Why
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Timothy Madden wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have automake 1.11.1 (on CentOS 6.2 x86_64), and a Makefile.am like this:
>
> AM_YFLAGS=-d
> BUILT_SOURCES=position.hh location.hh code-formatter-parser.hh stack.hh
> bin_PROGRAMS=code-formatter
> code_formatter_SOURCES=code-form
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
> Hey
>
> suppose that my program is composed of 2 files f1.c and f2.c. f1.c is
> written in C89 and f2.c in C99. I would like that f1.c is compiled
> with a C89 compiler and f2.c is compiled with a C99 compiler.
>
> How can I achieve that in
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>>> [Relying on source-code execute bits always being correctly
>>> maintained is one of those things that ... well... doesn't really
>>> feel very robust. I dunno, maybe it's just me...]
>>
>> Doesn't every package with
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> 2012年3月21日13:13 NightStrike :
>> Here's a better question. How do you insure that your current file is
>> executable? Do it the same way.
>
> Er "cp $< $@ && chmod +x $@" ... :]
>
&
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?
>>
>> Y
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 d
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_
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 Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius
wrote:
>> - The support for the "obscure" multilib feature has been deprecated,
>> and will be moved out of the automake core in the next major Automake
>> release (1.12).
>
> Bummer - Please reconsider this and understand that politliness
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> For cleaning non-automake-handled stuff, you can add a "clean-local:"
> rule (and "maintainer-clean-local:" etc) that does cleaning however
> you want. The automake-generated clean rule will depend on it, but
> you control what it does. For p
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> On Sunday 23 October 2011, NightStrike wrote:
>> Ping
>>
> I'm not going to look into this right now, sorry. If you want,
> please open a ticket in the automake bug tracker (by sending
> a proper mail to b
Ping
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:49 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>
> When using automake, I know how to set *FLAGS globally (ie,
> AM_*FLAGS), and per binary/lib (ie bin_PROGRAMS=foo ; foo_*FLAGS =
> ...) However, those flag variables apply to every source file for a
> given primary.
When using automake, I know how to set *FLAGS globally (ie,
AM_*FLAGS), and per binary/lib (ie bin_PROGRAMS=foo ; foo_*FLAGS =
...) However, those flag variables apply to every source file for a
given primary. What if I have multiple sources that are compiled
differently?
bin_PROGRAMS = a
a_SOUR
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:04 AM, tsuna wrote:
> What would be nice would be to have the ability to recompile only the
> .java that changed. So when you edit 2/3 files, then we'd build just
> that, but in one command.
make can handle this pretty well. If all the source files are listed
as prereq
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 March 2011, Dr David wrote:
>> On 03/29/11 12:19 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> > On Saturday 19 March 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> >> ABSTRACT:
>> >> The primary target of this project is to enable Automake-generat
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> * Modify gnulib so that it can be easily integrated into a
> non-recursive automake setup. One could look to libltdl for
> inspiration here.
How about modifying GCC. That should take some time, I think :) :) :)
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Pippijn wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 05:26:58PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>> > If there was a student interested in showing how "easy" it was to use
>> > automake to do non-recursive Makefiles for a project, I'd be willing to
>> > co-m
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Daily, Jeff A wrote:
>> From: automake-bounces+jeff.daily=pnl@gnu.org
>> [automake-bounces+jeff.daily=pnl@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Ralf Hemmecke
>> [hemme...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:18 AM
>> To: automake@gnu.org
>> Subject: Test supp
On 1/13/11, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> make is a bit flawed for real large projects because it always walks
> the whole dependency graph, unlike beta build systems who use a notify
> daemon and a database to only walk subgraphs known to be outdated.
How big is real large? GCC uses make, for instan
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * NightStrike wrote on Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 07:18:29PM CET:
>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> > Den 2011-01-04 16:23 skrev NightStrike:
>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Den 2011-01-04 16:23 skrev NightStrike:
>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:11 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:25 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:37 AM, NightStrike wrote:
&
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:11 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:25 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:37 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:25 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:37 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
>>> wrote:
>>>> * NightStrike wrote
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:37 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
>> wrote:
>>> * NightStrike wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:59:53PM CET:
>>>> Automake somehow def
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
> wrote:
>> * NightStrike wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:59:53PM CET:
>>> Automake somehow defines AR to 'ar'. I'm not sure where this comes
>>>
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * NightStrike wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:59:53PM CET:
>> Automake somehow defines AR to 'ar'. I'm not sure where this comes
>> from, but I do know that it's definitely not $host-ar, as I would
>&
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Patrick,
>
> * Patrick Rutkowski wrote on Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 03:26:52AM CEST:
>> test_avl_avl_iter_test_LDADD = -lquark
>> test_avl_avl_test_LDADD = -lquark
>> test_unicode_unicode_test_LDADD = -lquark
>>
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Here's the deal: At least two patch sets have been posted to Automake
> mailing lists during the last year in order to improve Vala support in
What's Vala?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:56 AM, John Calcote wrote:
> On 6/30/2010 3:41 AM, Wesley Smith wrote:
>>> From the automake manual:
>>>
>> You may only test a single variable in an if statement, possibly
>> negated using ‘!’. The else statement may be omitted. Conditionals may
>> be nested to any depth
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Richter wrote:
> It's more related to autoconf than to automake.
Oops :)
Sorry for replying too quickly on the autoconf list :(
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> NightStrike writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I suspect it depends on what sort of activities you expect people using
>>> a VCS checkout directly to be doing, and also
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn writes:
>
>> My project uses maintainer-mode and I always check these generated files
>> into the source code repository. The end user might not be able to
>> produce a working set of files based on whatever random autotools
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Matěj Týč wrote:
> Hello,
> I use GNU Autogen to generate files to my project.
>
> A little introduction:
> Autogen uses two files: A definition file, let's say foo.def and a
> template file, may be foo-template.tpl
> If I pass the definition file to autogen, it sh
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * NightStrike wrote on Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 05:09:04PM CEST:
>> >>> Is this possible? Is there anyone willing to do it?
>> >>
>> >> Addendum: A big benefit for me (other than m
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:25 PM, John Calcote wrote:
> A problem I foresee is providing the globbing functionality to makefile
> commands. We'd almost need a new auxiliary script (like install-sh) to
> generate lists of files from such glob specs. Not sure yet from where the
> primary functionalit
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:49 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:46 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:43 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> Would it be out of the question to teach automake how to handle a def
>>> file as a source file
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:46 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:43 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> Would it be out of the question to teach automake how to handle a def
>> file as a source file for a library? On windows platforms, we
>> typically do something lik
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:43 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> Would it be out of the question to teach automake how to handle a def
> file as a source file for a library? On windows platforms, we
> typically do something like this after building the libx.a file:
>
> $triplet-dlltool -k -
Would it be out of the question to teach automake how to handle a def
file as a source file for a library? On windows platforms, we
typically do something like this after building the libx.a file:
$triplet-dlltool -k --as=$triplet-as --output-lib=libx.a --def=x.def
--as-flags=$(ASFLAGS)
I notice
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * NightStrike wrote on Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:32:37AM CEST:
>> http://mingw-w64.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mingw-w64/trunk/mingw-w64-crt/Makefile.am?revision=2163&view=markup
>>
>> Down at lines
This is regarding the following file:
http://mingw-w64.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mingw-w64/trunk/mingw-w64-crt/Makefile.am?revision=2163&view=markup
Down at lines 937 to 941, there are two sets of rules, one for 3
specific files and one for the rest of the libs we generate:
lib64/libcrtdll.a lib
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
> Dave Hart wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 19:25 UTC, Charles Brown wrote:
>> >
>> > Very new to automake, and can't find an answer to this; What would be
>> put in
>> > configure.ac to determine whether the detected preprocessor/compile
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Andreas Jellinghaus
wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 04 März 2010 03:31:04 schrieb Ralf Wildenhues:
>> > ah. ok, so back to the drawing board for my plan with
>> > optional documentation (see the thread a week ago or so).
>>
>> You can use either of
>> - wildcards,
>> EXT
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * NightStrike wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:18:14PM CET:
>> Using AM_PROG_AS seems to set AS to 'as' instead of $host-as. Is this
>> another case of user error, or is this an automake bug?
>
> AM_PROG_AS
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * NightStrike wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:59:53PM CET:
>> Automake somehow defines AR to 'ar'. I'm not sure where this comes
>> from, but I do know that it's definitely not $host-ar, as I would
>&
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Steffen Dettmer wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:21:32AM CET:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> > When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not
>> > prop
Using AM_PROG_AS seems to set AS to 'as' instead of $host-as. Is this
another case of user error, or is this an automake bug?
Automake somehow defines AR to 'ar'. I'm not sure where this comes
from, but I do know that it's definitely not $host-ar, as I would
expect.
Is this an automake bug, or user error?
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Jef Driesen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How do I get information generated by autotools into my public header files?
> For instance I want to define version numbers somewhere in my configure.ac
> file, and have the same numbers appear in a public header file without
> having t
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * NightStrike wrote on Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:55:09PM CET:
>> When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not
>> propagated to configure without explicitly setting
>> DISTCHE
When doing a make distcheck, why is for instance the --host option not
propagated to configure without explicitly setting
DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> The above looks ok to me. Since I cannot, from your description,
> exactly reproduce the code that caused the warning for you, I cannot say
> whether that was a problem.
>
> The code as above does not yet take care of adjusting SUBDIRS (an
I'm sending this to both lists because I don't know which one is
right. I'm trying to conditionally configure and build subdirectories
using Automake conditionals. I'm flipping back and forth between both
manuals, so I'm guessing both apply.
I have a top level configure/makefile that I'm buildin
Right now, we distribute license files in the source archives by
adding them to the EXTRA_DIST variable.
We do not, however, include the license files in tarballs that we make
and distribute of the BINARY archives. I know automake has a lot
ofrules and stuff detailing how to build and package sou
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * Jan Engelhardt wrote on Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 07:04:39PM CEST:
>> when one decides to drive make in a non-recursive fashion, one has to
>> write an Automake file like this:
>>
>> lib_LTLIBRARIES = foo/bar.la
>> foo_bar_la_SOURCE
When I put fortran sources in a binary that also contains C sources,
the compiler optimization flags get messed up.
Observe:
bin_PROGRAMS = xx
xx_SOURCES = a.c a.f95
yields:
gcc ... -g -O2 ...
gfortran ... -g -O2 ...
Cool.
Now changing it like this:
bin_PROGRAMS = xx
xx_SOURCES = a.c a.f95
x
What's the preferred autoconf macro to use to check to see if the
compiler supports a certain option?
We want to see if the version of gcc we are building supports the
-municode option.
(autoconf 2.63, automake 1.11)
Why is AS found with AM_PROG_AS instead of AC_PROG_AS? Why is this an
automake thing and not an autoconf thing?
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello once again,
>
> allow me to expand upon this topic a bit more. In this message, I will
> not try to be fair towards the different test suite frameworks; instead,
> I'll bluntly praise the new parallel-tests driver. :-)
>
>> Automake
What's the difference between using this:
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Using-Autotest
and this:
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/automake.html#Tests
?
Which is better to use? Which will be maintained, and more
future-proof? Why is there duplication betwe
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> I see that the only way to request the new `silent-rules' feature is by
> using the new form of AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE to pass the option. Since my package
> can not use the new form of AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE, then it can not request
> `silent-rules'.
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * NightStrike wrote on Sat, May 09, 2009 at 10:51:15AM CEST:
>> I'm trying to use the new color-tests option as documented here:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/aut
I'm trying to use the new color-tests option as documented here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/automake/Tests.html#Tests
This online manual is listed as being for automake 1.10.2 here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/automake/index.html#Top
"This manual is for GNU Automake (v
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> We are in the process of moving to GPLv3+ plus exceptions. The
> lawyerese process for rewriting the exception specification is not fully
> done yet, which is why Autoconf 1.10 has been released with GPLv2+ plus
Has progress been made, or
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:48 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought this only occurred when "maintainer mode" was turned on, and
>>> that
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> I thought this only occurred when "maintainer mode" was turned on, and
>> that releases should be made with that turned off. Is that not how it
>> w
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Duft Markus wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a philosophical stance that the software we develop is
>>> intended for the software users rather than the software developer.
>>> There is a problem if build behavior is different f
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't the onus be on me, as the project maintainer, to accept that
>> risk and craft the wildcards properly? I for one would wager heavi
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> If automake has the ability to flatten the += syntax so that
>> non-portable make advances can be used, why can't the same logic apply
>&
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Tom,
>
> * Tom Browder wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:38:53AM CET:
> > Is it "legal" to use the "+=" operator in lieu of "\" when listing
> > members of a variable in Makefile.am's?
>
> Yes. In this case, an Au
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * NightStrike wrote on Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 01:52:23AM CET:
>> Is the following kosher?
>
> Yes, except that you need to use $(shell32src) instead of $shell32src in
> both places.
Noted, thanks!
>> she
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 2008-11-30 02:24, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>On Sunday 2008-11-30 01:52, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>>>Is the following kosher?
>>
>>It will produce two 32-bit libraries o
Is the following kosher?
shell32src=libsrc/shell32.c
lib32_LIBRARIES += lib32/libshell32.a
lib32_libshell32_a_SOURCES = $shell32src
lib32_libshell32_a_CPPFLAGS = -m32
lib64_LIBRARIES += lib64/libshell32.a
lib64_libshell32_a_SOURCES = $shell32src
Basically, all the sources are the same, so I do
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * NightStrike wrote on Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 08:01:19PM CEST:
>> Does automake yet support doing something like this?:
>>
>> mylibdir_LIBRARIES=liba.a
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
