Re: AM_SUBST_IGNORE = AC_SUBST without Makefile variable definition

2005-10-20 Thread Stepan Kasal
Hello, sorry that I reply to my own post. When I mentioned this "sed code" > > > /@[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ { > > > s/\n/\\&/g > > > s/@[EMAIL PROTECTED]// > > > s/\\$/& / > > > } I didn't knew that some make implementations swallow empty lines after a line ending with backslash. This means th

Re: AM_SUBST_IGNORE = AC_SUBST without Makefile variable definition

2005-10-20 Thread Stepan Kasal
Hello, On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:51:55AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > In other words, after the usual sed substtitutions, the following > > sed code is executed: > > /@[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ { > > s/\n/\\&/g > > s/@[EMAIL PROTECTED]// > > s/\\$/& / > > } > > Oh, ahh. Nifty! Only t

multiline substitutions (Was: Re: AM_SUBST_IGNORE = AC_SUBST without Makefile variable definition)

2005-10-20 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
I'm sorry don't have time to read this whole thread in detail right now, but here are some thoughts (probably contradictory). We already have AC_SUBST_FILE. Shouldn't we also have AC_SUBST_MULTILINE or some such? This way we can tell the difference from --trace, and use something like @\n@ only

Re: AM_SUBST_IGNORE = AC_SUBST without Makefile variable definition

2005-10-19 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
[ removed automake-patches, its readers are likely to read here, too, and this isn't about a patch ] Hi Stepan, * Stepan Kasal wrote on Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 01:37:22PM CEST: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:32:37AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I believe what Stepan meant was: *snip* > > not e

Re: AM_SUBST_IGNORE = AC_SUBST without Makefile variable definition

2005-10-19 Thread Stepan Kasal
Hello, On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:32:37AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > I believe what Stepan meant was: > If the status.m4 code encounters [EMAIL PROTECTED]@@\n@', where `FOO' has > been > AC_SUBSTed, then treat the replacement of the complete string > [EMAIL PROTECTED]@@\n@' in a special way

Re: AM_SUBST_IGNORE = AC_SUBST without Makefile variable definition

2005-10-19 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Simon, Stepan, * Simon Richter wrote on Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 08:53:55AM CEST: > Stepan Kasal schrieb: > > > AC_SUBST([FOO], ["foo > > bar"]) > > Automake could generate lines like this: > > > FOO = @FOO@@\n@ > > There are a lot of cases, in fact, the majority, where the substituted > strin

Re: AM_SUBST_IGNORE = AC_SUBST without Makefile variable definition

2005-10-19 Thread Stepan Kasal
Hello, On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 08:53:55AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > Stepan Kasal schrieb: > > FOO = @FOO@@\n@ > > There are a lot of cases, in fact, the majority, where the substituted > string is only known at configure time, when the Makefile.in files have > long been generated. of course.

Re: AM_SUBST_IGNORE = AC_SUBST without Makefile variable definition

2005-10-19 Thread Simon Richter
Hi Stepan, Stepan Kasal schrieb: > AC_SUBST([FOO], ["foo > bar"]) [...] > Automake could generate lines like this: > FOO = @FOO@@\n@ There are a lot of cases, in fact, the majority, where the substituted string is only known at configure time, when the Makefile.in files have long been generat

Re: AM_SUBST_IGNORE = AC_SUBST without Makefile variable definition

2005-10-18 Thread Stepan Kasal
Hello, On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 12:55:38PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: > I have another solution for the problem of multiline substitutions first, let me sum up the problem: If you use AC_SUBST([FOO], ["foo bar"]) in your configure.ac, then Automake traces it, and puts FOO = @FOO@ to each Make