- Original Message -
| From: "Thomas Dickey"
| To: "Paul Eggert"
| Cc: "Mathieu Lirzin" , "Eric Blake" ,
"bug-autoconf" , "automake"
|
| Sent: Monday, September 3, 2018 5:11:43 PM
| Subject: Re: copyright problem with install-
- Original Message -
| From: "Paul Eggert"
| To: "Mathieu Lirzin" , "Eric Blake"
| Cc: bug-autoc...@gnu.org, "automake"
| Sent: Monday, September 3, 2018 2:24:32 PM
| Subject: Re: copyright problem with install-sh, request for clean-room rewrite
| Mathieu Lirzin wrote:
|> According to ‘
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:13:13AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
...
> Note that the most recent version of 'install-sh' as installed by Automake
> states:
> # Copyright (C) 1994 X Consortium
looking at my collection of untarred X sources, there's an issue with that:
The comment just before reads some
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 12:31:51AM +, Andy Falanga (afalanga) wrote:
> I would like to know the "proper" method for adding an "--enable-debug"
> option to my build using autotools. Perhaps what I should call this is
> a "best-practice" or something similar. So, some googling and Autotools
- Original Message -
| From: "Andy Falanga (afalanga)"
| To: automake@gnu.org
| Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 7:04:48 PM
| Subject: The right way to use standard variable in configure.ac
|
| Hi,
|
| I placed the following in my configure.ac file:
|
| CPPFLAGS="-DMACRO1 -DMACRO2"
|
| be
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Alan, Jim,
* Jim Meyering wrote on Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 04:32:57PM CET:
Automake is following the GNU Coding Standards recommendation here,
which lists another reason ((standards.info)Releases):
Make sure that the directory into which the
On Sat, 30 May 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
POSIX says that; however different implementations of 'make' treat
forward-references differently.
Well that's when you would put XY_V last, just to be sure:
XY_ = unknown
XY_0 = silent
XY_1 = verbose
XY_V = $(XY_$(V))
then there is no forward ref
On Sun, 24 May 2009, Bruno Haible wrote:
- The `silent-rules' option enables Linux kernel-style silent build output.
This option requires the widely supported but non-POSIX `make' feature
of recursive variable expansion,
We are talking about constructs like this:
== Makefile ==
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
By sufficiently noisy I mean that the user should be able to see the
preprocessor and library search paths and any defines provided via the
command line so they
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
By sufficiently noisy I mean that the user should be able to see the
preprocessor and library search paths and any defines provided via the
command line so they can be sure that the right bits are being used.
The config.status file provides this inf
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
Thomas Dickey wrote:
well (recalling previous discussion), the reason that Ralf's complaining
is that while it makes working on your program simpler it makes
finding bugs in _automake_ harder.
If you think seeing those long gcc command lines
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
I like automake's upcoming --silent-rules option enough
that I'm making it the default (when possible) for coreutils.
Well, if you think such a step to be helpful, I disagree.
Then you can build with "make V
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, NightStrike wrote:
On 4/25/08, Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NightStrike wrote:
-Wall and -pedantic... AM_CFLAGS or AM_CPPFLAGS?
Neither. Neither are portable, so the do not belong in the Makefile.am,
check for gc
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
What I was originally suggesting is that I think there is literally
thousands, to tens of thousands of people that would appreciate it if
the automake output could be configurable when they do, ./configure &&
make.
That's a more reasonable estimate...
My
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It's possible to make your install-target depend on the file that you
want to install, but doing that for several files can be tedious. I do
this in regular makefiles, for instance
$(INST
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Jeff Safier wrote:
Make install seems to copy the target whether its been rebuilt or not
and every time the file is copied it puts a new timestamp on the file.
that's another of those features which the automake maintainer doesn't
agree with.
It's possible to make your i
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 10:02:12AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 06:24:47AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
Even easier. Perhaps someone should post a patch for
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 06:24:47AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
Even easier. Perhaps someone should post a patch for this feature!
There is (it's been discussed on this mailing list more than once).
But I see y
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Simon Richter wrote:
Hi,
Dizzy wrote:
CC init/version.o
Displaying the whole compile line is pretty useless in my opinion...
Indeed it is and when it errors (the only moment when you need to know the
command that errored) it can be displayed as people said in
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Brendon Costa wrote:
In addition to that, its also possible though more work to disable
echo but to emit the command line after a command fails. Not only do
...
agree (that's the type of rote repetition for which automake is supposedly
intended - forcing the users to alway
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bob Rossi wrote:
Even easier. Perhaps someone should post a patch for this feature!
There is (it's been discussed on this mailing list more than once).
But I see you in one of the discussions..
For those who came late, here's one of the places where the automake
maintaine
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
A big difference between Automake projects and building the Linux kernel is
that building the linux kernel is practically assured to succeed where as
building Automake projects may fail and require correction by the end user
(who needs to see what is
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Sun, 2007-01-14 at 06:20 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 11:28 -0600, Jason Kraftcheck wrote:
This makes it *very* easy to miss potential important compiler warnings
and such in all
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 11:28 -0600, Jason Kraftcheck wrote:
This makes it *very* easy to miss potential important compiler warnings
and such in all the noise.
I could not disagree more.
attitudes like that are why some of us don't bother using your
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Stepan Kasal wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 12:14:28PM -0700, Douglas Phillipson wrote:
The autoconf tutorial states that either a configure.ac or a
configure.in can be used initially. What is the difference and why
would you use the configure.ac over the configure
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Bob Proulx wrote:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Am i supposed to manually set libdir according to build host to get
compliance with such constraint ?
Yes, you can specify --libdir at configure time. Note for system
...
And note that not all systems
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Thomas 'Tom' R. Treadway III wrote:
On Mar 9, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Thomas Dickey wrote:
hmm - I can remember when it was a problem (around 1990), but can't
recall whether it was Apollo SR9, SunOS 3 or HPUX. You did say
"ancient"...
The dirname uti
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Thomas Dickey wrote on Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 08:13:07PM CET:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
dirname and basename are not portable to ancient hosts. In practice
they will work fine, though. I'd write
I know that dirname is not
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
dirname and basename are not portable to ancient hosts. In practice
they will work fine, though. I'd write
I know that dirname is not, but what platform did not support basename?
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-islan
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Thomas,
* Thomas Dickey wrote on Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:54:33AM CET:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
AC_DEFINE([foo], [bar baz])
The "new" syntax is backward-compatible to the dark ages, and should
have been, had it no
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
AC_DEFINE([foo], [bar baz])
Combine that with the fact that newer aclocal versions may evaluate the
same macro definitions more than once.
The "new" syntax is backward-compatible to the dark ages, and should
have been, had it not been for the lazynes
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Stepan Kasal wrote:
Well, the interface between Autoconf and config.sub/guess is very simple
and I don't think it has ever changed.
It was broken for a while around autoconf 2.51
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
but that doesn't make much sense.
still no: there are people who really do _not_ want "make install"
to create new files (because that's the way they want to do installs).
When they see it doing that, it's a bug.
You're welcome to produce code the
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
Harald> Please see subject. Of course I would agree that this
Harald> dependency is usually a good thing, but sometimes it might
Harald> be helpfull to do a 'make install' for another prefix e.g.
Harald> in your
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 04:31:43PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
>
> As we all know, when cpp processes #include "xx.h", it searched first
> the "current directory", and then the system directories. The problem
> here is that "current directory" here means the directory of the currently
> processed
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 13:15 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
PS: I know this is not the first time, but I simply do not
understand why you respond to bug reports without Cc: the
reporter.
I normally respond CC:-ing the reporter on auto*.gnu.org l
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
My software works fine under HP-UX. You software should work under HP-UX as
well.
judging by the clues which google provides, Andrew's scope of experience
is rather limited (hence the disparaging remarks).
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.n
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
For any feature you care to consider, ABSOLUTELY ANY FEATURE YOU HAVE
EVER USED, there exists a platform on which it does not work. That
does not mean you should not write any code.
Perhaps you don't choose to do good work, but don't try to persuade other
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Paul F. Kunz wrote:
>Try compiling under emacs. Do "ESC-x", then type compile in a
> buffer that has a file in the same directory as your Makefile. After
> compilation, you can find the warnings and errors with "Ctrl-x `".
> This not only shows you the warning, but opens
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Steffen Boerm wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > Simply using the ".SILENT: ..." pseudo-target goes a little too
> > > far, I would prefer something similar to the behaviour of the
> > > Linux kernel Makefiles, e.g., printing only the line
> >
> > > Compiling foo.c
> >
> > > when foo.c
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Simply using the ".SILENT: ..." pseudo-target goes a little too
> > far, I would prefer something similar to the behaviour of the
> > Linux kernel Makefiles, e.g., printing only the line
>
> > Compiling foo.c
>
> > when foo.c is compiled.
>
>
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
>
> > i posted the following to the autoconf list:
> >
> > http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2004-04/msg00131.html
> >
> > but perusing the archive shows that list is mostly full of (other)
> > junk
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> The reason why I mentioned /usr/local is because it is a shared
> directory. I could also have mentioned /usr. While it seems nice for
> a package to 100% clean-up after itself, a bug could cause the package
> uninstall to accidentally remove the oper
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >>> "sbd" == Drummonds, Scott B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> sbd> A quick search of the net leads me to believe that this may be a 1.7 bug
> sbd> related to a large number of files in AC_OUTPUT for which there is no
> sbd> workarou
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> > Surely the automake maintainers realize that this is a bug, don't they?
> >
>
> No, it is not an automake or autoconf bug. Autoconf and Automake are
> about portability and spaces in path names are not portable.
Which platforms does automake run on whe
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is only archived at mail.gnu.org and
> gmane.org. It is quite young so the mail.gnu.org archive is
> complete, however I fear the day it will be cut.
any idea what fraction of the archive is spam?
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://i
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 12:09:09PM -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> %% Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> td> judging by comments I've seen in other mailing lists, it's not
> td> likely that GNU "make" will be worth bothering with, sinc
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 06:23:39PM +, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Recently I was looking to put another operating system on a Sun for
> testing and someone suggested using SunOs 4.1.4, since it is still
> used a fair amount. My machine now has gcc-2.0, but there is no way I
> could even build g
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 08:25:00PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> The Autoconf team is happy to annonce the first beta of forthcoming
> Autoconf 2.55. Download, compile, install, torture, and enjoy!
...
> ** Bug Fixes
>
> - Portability of the Autoconf package to Solaris.
if it couldn't work pr
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:43:20AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
>
> Perhaps. What I specifically remember is conditional code for VMS in
> some of the earlier packages.
ifdef's are not autoconf.
--
Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 12:23:34PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> In my opinion it is prohibitive and stupid not to have a libtool release
> that can properly interact with autoconf.
It's equally stupid to release a version of autoconf which cannot properly
interact with released versions of li
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 09:25:36AM +0200, Patrick Guio wrote:
> If I just "touch configure" then everything is running ok again. I am not
> sure which of the package is generating this trouble nut is there any
> policy/strategy of using configuration tool together with a cvs
> repository?
that's
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:12:26PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> As a secondary point, as a user, I'd love to see one of two things:
> * looser coupling between automake and autoconf, or
good
> * a single product.
bad (there's been no good come out of mashing automake into autoconf).
--
Tho
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:32:02PM -0500, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> Well -- the whole idea is to remove the rule targets. I know of only
> one use of multiple colons on a line -- in GNU make. Even there,
> everything before a ':' is a rule target. My comment "limited to the
> first ':'" may not
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:02:50PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> BTW it is hard to read big rearrangement patches. It is made worse
rearrangements are done better by a script than a patch.
--
Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://dickey.his.com
ftp://dickey.his.com
On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 09:03:11AM +0200, Morten Eriksen wrote:
> At first, I thought this was due to a MIPSpro compiler bug, but I
> discovered that it was in fact due to the native sed. Checking the man
> pages for sed (SGI IRIX 6.5), I find this:
>
> Some of the commands use a hold spac
56 matches
Mail list logo
