Re: Makefile.in, LIBTOOL and shared/static builds.

> The overhead attributed to libtool seems rather high. Is there > something about your execution environment or your libtool usage which > causes more overhead than usual? Not that I am aware of, its the standard GNU libtool in Slackware64-current. > How does slibtool validate arguments? Does it

Re: Makefile.in, LIBTOOL and shared/static builds.

the problem here is that slibtool works at a lower level than libtool and as a result is not able to rely on what is not in files like Makefile.in as libtool can. This should be relatively easy to fix in automake (?) with making it possible to obtain this information easier. Usually it is possible

Re: Makefile.in, LIBTOOL and shared/static builds.

btool works at a lower level than libtool and as a result is not able to rely on what is not in files like Makefile.in as libtool can. This should be relatively easy to fix in automake (?) with making it possible to obtain this information easier. Alternative suggestions on how to improve this wo

Re: Makefile.in, LIBTOOL and shared/static builds.

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:00 AM or...@fredslev.dk wrote: > Hi, > > I am using the GNU libtool alternative slibtool which has some benefits > such as a smaller code base, actively maintained and a huge performance > boost. I’m curious - it’s neat that slibtool exists, but if you need functionali

Makefile.in, LIBTOOL and shared/static builds.

n automake. Currently it seems automake will add to Makefile.in. $(LIBTOOL) For slibtool and maybe some other projects (?) it would be much better if automake instead added to Makefile.in. $(LIBTOOL) $(LIBTOOL_LINKAGE) Or something to that effect which I understand should be safe, this way slib

Re: Do fail when regeneration of Makefile.in does not succeed

Hi Jan. On 11/14/2012 04:44 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > Hi, > > > Is there an option to yield an error instead of a warning > if Makefile.in needs to be regenerated, but can't? > > The case before me is that iptables's Makefile.am in openSUSE is > patched aft

Do fail when regeneration of Makefile.in does not succeed

Hi, Is there an option to yield an error instead of a warning if Makefile.in needs to be regenerated, but can't? The case before me is that iptables's Makefile.am in openSUSE is patched after tarball extraction. But, due to 1. $PEBKAC not calling autoreconf, 2. the system having aut

Makefile.in not generated using Automake

onfigure: creating ./config.status config.status: error: cannot find input file: `Makefile.in' $ ls aclocal.m4 config.h.inconfigure depcomp install-sh autom4te.cache config.log configure.ac hello.c Makefile.am autoscan.logconfig.status COPYING INSTALL missing $ gcc hello.c –o hello $ ./hello Hello World! $

Re: Makefile.in not generated using Automake

age from automake and failed to check for non-zero exit status. Automake won't produce Makefile.in if required files are missing. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com+1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: configure can't find doc/Makefile.in

Stefano, BTW, you can find the test build of C-Graph here: Thanks again, Adrienne -- Freedom - no pane, all gaiGN! Code Art Now http://codeartnow.com Email: a...@codeartnow.com

Re: configure can't find doc/Makefile.in

ge TEX prg from tug.org and reinstalled the leaner version from Debian sources. As you said, it "works like a charm". I was in such a rush to get this build going (trying to meet an end of year deadline) that the error "config.status: error: cannot find input file: `doc/Makefile.in&#

Re: configure can't find doc/Makefile.in

On Friday 17 December 2010, Adrienne Thompson wrote: > > >> Stefano and friends: > >> > >> I've spotted the problem. I forgot to include "doc" in the top > >> Makefile.am in the SUBDIRS list. > >> > > I can confirm this is indeed the issue, and that it causes failures > > also with automake 1.10.3

Re: configure can't find doc/Makefile.in

Stefano and friends: I've spotted the problem. I forgot to include "doc" in the top Makefile.am in the SUBDIRS list. I can confirm this is indeed the issue, and that it causes failures also with automake 1.10.3 and automake 1.9.6. Glad you solved your problem, BTW. Thank you Stefano. I w

Re: configure can't find doc/Makefile.in

On Friday 17 December 2010, Adrienne Thompson wrote: > Stefano and friends: > > I've spotted the problem. I forgot to include "doc" in the top > Makefile.am in the SUBDIRS list. > I can confirm this is indeed the issue, and that it causes failures also with automake 1.10.3 and automake 1.9.6. Gl

Re: configure can't find doc/Makefile.in

Stefano and friends: I've spotted the problem. I forgot to include "doc" in the top Makefile.am in the SUBDIRS list. The build now produces an info directory with the cgraph.info file. I'm getting [cgraph.dvi] and recursive dvi-recursive] error 1 from make, but at least I'm getting the build

Re: configure can't find doc/Makefile.in

king for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /bin/mkdir -p checking for gawk... no checking for mawk... mawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking for g95... g95 checking whether the Fortran compiler works... yes checking for Fortran compiler default output file name... a.out checking for suffix of executables... checking whether we are cross compiling... no checking for suffix of object files... o checking whether we are using the GNU Fortran compiler... yes checking whether g95 accepts -g... yes configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating Makefile config.status: creating src/Makefile config.status: error: cannot find input file: `doc/Makefile.in' make: *** [distcheck] Error 1 viper-2 -- Freedom - no pane, all gaiGN! Code Art Now http://codeartnow.com Email: a...@codeartnow.com

Re: configure can't find doc/Makefile.in

ror message: > > "config.status: error: cannot find input file: 'doc/Makefile.in' " > > Installation of the resulting tarball produces an installation with > missing directories. I've done a fair bit of googling but have been > unable to resolve the proble

configure can't find doc/Makefile.in

tories. However, running "make distcheck" terminates with the error message: "config.status: error: cannot find input file: 'doc/Makefile.in' " Installation of the resulting tarball produces an installation with missing directories. I've done a fair bit of googling b

Automake AM_COND_IF problem: libopts/Makefile.in split personality

top.c subproj/ configure.ac Makefile.am sub.c libopts/ m4/ ... Both top.c and sub.c are libopts clients, sharing the single subproj/libopts bundled copy. The problem is that sometimes subproj/libopts/Makefile.in is generated correctly b

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

hitting some special input (some struct syntax). Makefile uses some awk construction to generate the list of files. As workaround someone propose to add some if in the awk script to simply skip the related file. But AFAIK there is no way to run some `find and replace' on rules from Mak

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

* Steffen Dettmer wrote on Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:53:56AM CEST: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Ralf Wildenhues > wrote: > > > would it be a potential possibility instead to `overwrite and > > > specialize' some macro? > > > > With "some macro", you mean "some prepended or appended makefile.a

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > would it be a potential possibility instead to `overwrite and > > specialize' some macro? > > With "some macro", you mean "some prepended or appended makefile.am > snippet" here, right? > > Well, my idea of the above would be that if you

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

* Steffen Dettmer wrote on Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:14:54PM CEST: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Ralf Wildenhues > wrote: > > * Xavier MARCELET wrote on Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:38:36AM CEST: > > For example, we could have a couple of macros > > > > # AM_MAKEFILE_PREPEND([FRAGMENT], [SUBDIR-PAT

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Xavier MARCELET wrote on Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:38:36AM CEST: > For example, we could have a couple of macros > > # AM_MAKEFILE_PREPEND([FRAGMENT], [SUBDIR-PATTERN]) > # - > # Prepend FRAGM

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

* Xavier MARCELET wrote on Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:38:36AM CEST: > Lets say that the file "my_include.am" declares a rule to generate > documentation : > $cat my_include.am > doc : >INPUT=. doxygen doxygen.cfg > > Now, I wish to include this rule in every Makefi

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

Hello Shizheng, please don't top-post, thank you. * isulsz wrote on Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 05:02:09AM CEST: > I have another question regarding to the flag of the g++ compiler. I want to > debug the code carefully so I want to add -O0 option to the g++ so that it > will not optimize the code. Here

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

every Makefile generated from Makefile.in that are themselves generated from Makefile.am. A simple solution would be to include "my_include.am" in all Makefile.am as follow : head -n 1 ./src/Makefile.am include $(top_srcdir)/my_include.am head -n 1 ./src/tools/Makefile.a

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

> Now, I wish to include this rule in every Makefile generated from > Makefile.in that are themselves generated from Makefile.am. ... > However, I don't want to add the "include" instruction in the Makefile.am, > in fact, I don't want to modify those files at all. &

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hello Xavier, * Xavier MARCELET wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 03:58:33PM CEST: I have an include file (named 'my_include.am') that I want to append in all the Makefile.in of my project as if it was included in all my Makefile.am. I don't want

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

think your project setup; there is a way out but you > shouldn't have to use it except in rare cases. > > Cheers, > Ralf > > > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Makefile.in-and-Makefile-not-generated-when-using-a-static-library-tp28205430p28219214.html Sent from the Gnu - Automake - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

Hello Xavier, * Xavier MARCELET wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 03:58:33PM CEST: > I have an include file (named 'my_include.am') that I want to append > in all the Makefile.in of my project > as if it was included in all my Makefile.am. > I don't want to edit all

Include directive for all generated Makefile.in

Hi, I have an include file (named 'my_include.am') that I want to append in all the Makefile.in of my project as if it was included in all my Makefile.am. I don't want to edit all the makefile.am files (even through a script) Is there any simple way to do that ? Thx, -- Xavier MARCELET

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

Hello, * isulsz wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 04:38:08AM CEST: > But I have a new problem. When I try to "make" the project, I get this > error: > *** No rule to make target `../../src/Random/librng.a', needed by > `MultiSour'. Stop. You probably need to reorder your SUBDIRS entry in the Makefi

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

Hello William, * William Pursell wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 04:34:48AM CEST: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > Strictly speaking, AC_PROG_INSTALL is redundant here, being already > > AC_REQUIRE'd by AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE (this should hold from Automake 1.4 > > at least, I think). > > Yes, I thought

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

Thanks. I see the problem and I use the white spaces instead of commas and it seemes to work, I see the Makefile.in and Makefile in src/Random directory. But I have a new problem. When I try to "make" the project, I get this error: *** No rule to make target `../../src/Random/librng.

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hello William. I hope you don't mind a little nitpicking on your > overall good suggestions... Absolutely not. One of the main reasons I ever post solutions on any forum is to get criticism. I've discovered that learning things about which I am totally ignorant is mu

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

Hello William. I hope you don't mind a little nitpicking on your overall good suggestions... > Rename the file configure.ac, and modify the contents to be: > > AC_INIT([MultiSour], [0.8]) > AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([src/app/SimpMSourSimu.cpp]) > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([foreign]) > AC_PROG_CXX > AC_PROG_INSTA

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

> AC_OUTPUT(src/app/Makefile, src/Random/Makefile, Makefile) If you want to pass two or more files to AC_OUTPUT, you must separate them by white spaces, not by commas. Otherwise, only the first one is considered (in this case only `src/app/Makefile'), which is hardly what you want. That said,

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

> AC_OUTPUT(src/app/Makefile, src/Random/Makefile, Makefile) If you want to pass two or more files to AC_OUTPUT, you must separate them by white spaces, not by commas. Otherwise, only the first one is considered (in this case only `src/app/Makefile'), which is hardly what you want. That said,

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

isulsz wrote: > I am new to GNU Auto tools and I am trying to build a project that contains > several source files and a static library. > The configure.in is > AC_INIT(./src/app/SimpMSourSimu.cpp) > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(MultiSour, 0.8) > AC_PROG_CXX > AC_PROG_INSTALL > AC_PROG_RANLIB > AC_OUTPUT(sr

Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

d I cannot find Makefile.in in src/Random directory. But I can find Makefile.in in src/app directory. Why the automake not generate Makefile.in in src/Random directory? I'm not entirely sure myself, without recreating your setup. I'm surmising it might be because of an incomplete AC_OUTPUT statement. Thanks!

Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library

) AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(MultiSour, 0.8) AC_PROG_CXX AC_PROG_INSTALL AC_PROG_RANLIB AC_OUTPUT(src/app/Makefile, src/Random/Makefile, Makefile) I ran: aclocal autoconf libtoolize --automake automake But when I run ./configure, it says src/Random/Makefile: No such file or directory And I cannot find Makefile.in in

Re: Passing an "include" directive to Makefile.in

On 25/11/08 01:20 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hello Thomas, > > * Thomas Guyot-Sionnest wrote on Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:17:48PM CET: >> I'm trying to pass an "include " directive to Makefile.in without >> having it interpreted by Automake. >> >&g

Re: Passing an "include" directive to Makefile.in

Hello Thomas, * Thomas Guyot-Sionnest wrote on Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:17:48PM CET: > > I'm trying to pass an "include " directive to Makefile.in without > having it interpreted by Automake. > > What I'm trying to do is to update a Makefile variable based on

Passing an "include" directive to Makefile.in

Hi, I'm trying to pass an "include " directive to Makefile.in without having it interpreted by Automake. What I'm trying to do is to update a Makefile variable based on git-describe to provide a dynamic version string (in a very similar way to how Git is doing in their own r

Re: remove dependency on Makefile.am in Makefile.in

y the generated configure and Makefile.in's. Is this possible at all ? If you use AM_MAINTAINER_MODE and AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS=foreign, it might be possible. Since Automake is used, a few edits to the Makefile.in may be required. I have seen a package distributed this way. However, you may want t

remove dependency on Makefile.am in Makefile.in

I was wondering if the following is plausible -- I use Makefile.am and run automake (autoreconf, really) to create the Makefile.in's When I distribute the project, I dont want to distribute configure.ac and Makefile.am, rather distribute only the generated configure and Makefile.in's. Is this pos

Re: Passing --add-missing when rebuilding Makefile.in

c/missing --run aclocal-1.10 > cd . && /bin/sh /tmp/ac/missing --run automake-1.10 --foreign > Makefile.am: required file `./depcomp' not found > Makefile.am: `automake --add-missing' can install `depcomp' > make: *** [Makefile.in] Error 1 > > Would it b

Passing --add-missing when rebuilding Makefile.in

--foreign Makefile.am: required file `./depcomp' not found Makefile.am: `automake --add-missing' can install `depcomp' make: *** [Makefile.in] Error 1 Would it be a problem if --add-missing was always passed to automake at this point? Cheers, -- Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna EPITA

Re: I can do it in Makefile.in but not sure how to translate it to Makefile.am

L2CPP) --c++-suffix cpp --no-signals --no-stub kcookieserver.kidl foobar While this works great in the Makefile.in, when Makefile.in gets rebuilt from Makefile.am this gets hosed. I don't understand the question. If you add that code to Makefile.am, it will be copied to Makefil

Re: I can do it in Makefile.in but not sure how to translate it to Makefile.am

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hello John, * J.H. wrote on Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 03:32:14AM CET: kcookieserver_skel.cpp: kcookieserver.kidl $(DCOPIDL2CPP) --c++-suffix cpp --no-signals --no-stub kcookieserver.kidl foobar While this works great in the Makefile.in, when Makefile.in

Re: I can do it in Makefile.in but not sure how to translate it to Makefile.am

Hello John, * J.H. wrote on Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 03:32:14AM CET: > > kcookieserver_skel.cpp: kcookieserver.kidl > $(DCOPIDL2CPP) --c++-suffix cpp --no-signals --no-stub > kcookieserver.kidl > foobar > > While this works great in the Makefile.in, when Mak

I can do it in Makefile.in but not sure how to translate it to Makefile.am

Evening, I'm a bit confused on how to accomplish what I need to do, I have a Makefile.in that I need to adjust a single target: kcookieserver_skel.cpp: kcookieserver.kidl $(DCOPIDL2CPP) --c++-suffix cpp --no-signals --no-stub kcookieserver.kidl basically when this target

Re: Dependency of Makefile.in on Makefile.am is not aware

Hello Tzu-Chien, * Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote on Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 07:49:38AM CEST: > > I have a strange problem on cygwin. The Makefile generated by > 'configure' doesn't detect the change of corresponding Makefile.am. > I have to manually remove the corresponding Make

Dependency of Makefile.in on Makefile.am is not aware

Hello all. I have a strange problem on cygwin. The Makefile generated by 'configure' doesn't detect the change of corresponding Makefile.am. I have to manually remove the corresponding Makefile.in to force it to be re-generated. I didn't enable the maintainer m

Re: question about makefile.in

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:54:23AM +0800, zouq wrote: > in the gcc-3.4.1 Makefile.in , > > GTFILES_FILES_FILES = @all_gtfiles_files_files@ > why two "@" used here? > does it have special meaning? Yes, that's right. It is Autoconf's ``substitution markup´´. Pat

question about makefile.in

in the gcc-3.4.1 Makefile.in , GTFILES_FILES_FILES = @all_gtfiles_files_files@ why two "@" used here? does it have special meaning?

Re: Use of really long lines in Makefile.in

Hi, On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:49:40PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > [...] I was really leery of changing the layout of the variables > defined by the user. Normally Automake tries to output definitions > as it reads them. I like your attitude. > Maybe Automake could do that if the varia

Re: Use of really long lines in Makefile.in

>>> "J" == J T Conklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: J> Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> So, should automake change lines like: >> foo_SOURCES = [long list of sources] >> to the following in Makefile.in: >> foo_SOURCES = $(foo

Re: Use of really long lines in Makefile.in

Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, should automake change lines like: > foo_SOURCES = [long list of sources] > to the following in Makefile.in: > foo_SOURCES = $(foo_SOURCES_1) $(foo_SOURCES_2) ... > foo_SOURCES_1 = [list of sources < 2048 chars] >

Use of really long lines in Makefile.in

invalid use of long lines in Makefile.am/in: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2005-02/msg00024.html So, should automake change lines like: foo_SOURCES = [long list of sources] to the following in Makefile.in: foo_SOURCES = $(foo_SOURCES_1) $(foo_SOURCES_2) ... foo_SOURC

Re: Generating Makefile.in in File-Empty Subdir

> it (just subdirs). The foo/Makefile.am has in it: > > ... > SUBDIRS=bar > ... > > And foo/bar/Makefile.am has only: > > SUBDIRS=foobar barfoo > > and nothing else. The issue is that, though foo/bar/foobar/Makefile.in > and foo/bar/barfoo/Makefil

Generating Makefile.in in File-Empty Subdir

/Makefile.am has only: SUBDIRS=foobar barfoo and nothing else. The issue is that, though foo/bar/foobar/Makefile.in and foo/bar/barfoo/Makefile.in are generated, nothing is generated for foo/bar/Makefile.in, which kills builds (especially "make dist"), due to there being no Makefile

Re: Generating Makefile.in in File-Empty Subdir

Oh, for the love of Pete. You are, of course, quite correct. I can't believe I forgot something so silly. Thanks bunches! --bj On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 21:26, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Sounds as if you might have missed to list some Makefiles in your > configure.ac's AC_CONFIG_FILES > > Ralf

Re: How hardcode different default prefix? Hack Makefile.in bestway? use autoconf macro?

Hi, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is hacking definition of $(prefix) in Makefile.in the > best way to change default prefix from something other > than /usr/local??? > > Is there some macro to add to configure.in that would > do the same? That seems like the ideal. Tr

How hardcode different default prefix? Hack Makefile.in best way?use autoconf macro?

Is hacking definition of $(prefix) in Makefile.in the best way to change default prefix from something other than /usr/local??? Is there some macro to add to configure.in that would do the same? That seems like the ideal. Chris

Re: Unwanted autoheader call included in Makefile.in

* Guido Draheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-01-28 10:35]: > I've been plagued with some implicit and unnecessary `rebuild`s in > some projects - and the solution is quite simple: in your configure.ac > script, reset autotools variables to a colon - i.e. >AUTOHEADER=":" > or perhaps better yet, r

Re: Unwanted autoheader call included in Makefile.in

Rafael Laboissiere schrieb: When I use the macro AC_CONFIG_HEADERS, automake includes a rule in Makefile.in to rebuild config.h.in through autoheader. Now, I do not want at all that this file gets touched by autoheader, even when I modifiy one of its "presumed dependencies" aclo

Unwanted autoheader call included in Makefile.in

When I use the macro AC_CONFIG_HEADERS, automake includes a rule in Makefile.in to rebuild config.h.in through autoheader. Now, I do not want at all that this file gets touched by autoheader, even when I modifiy one of its "presumed dependencies" aclocal.m4 and configure.ac. Is tha

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

e top-level for this feature to work. The second one is more complex but will work at any depth. We could put more smarts into config.status, but then we're still left with the problem of how to generate Makefile.in. Either of Alexandre's ideas is easily extended to solve that problem too. Tom

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 08:49:01AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote: > > "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Akim> BTW, Automake still does not take full advantage of the current > Akim> config.status. It could perfectly w

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> > "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> Tom> We could just always run `./config.status' and rebuild |> Tom> everything. We've always avoided that on performance and |> Tom> historical grounds. |> |> We can add --update to config.stat

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Akim> BTW, Automake still does not take full advantage of the current Akim> config.status. It could perfectly well have foo/Makefile have a Akim> trampoline to top_builddir/Makefile wh

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Akim> BTW, Automake still does not take full advantage of the current Akim> config.status. It could perfectly well have foo/Makefile have a Akim> trampoline to top_builddir/Makefile which would recreate all the Akim> obsolete Makefile (an

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Earnie> Wouldn't this work anyway because you had to change the Earnie> top-level Makefile.am or configu

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> >>>>> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> |> Earnie> Wouldn't this work anyway because you had to change the |> Earnie> top-level Makefile.am or configure.in to include

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 10:45:04AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > The question is: what > Makefile decides to generate the new Makefile for the first time? > Or, for that matter, the new Makefile.in? This would seem to make the "new Makefile.am" question pretty much equivalent to

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

>>>>> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Earnie> Wouldn't this work anyway because you had to change the Earnie> top-level Makefile.am or configure.in to include the new Earnie> SUBDIR? I.E.: Makefile.in : Makefile.am configure.in

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

lementation though. > Wouldn't this work anyway because you had to change the top-level Makefile.am or configure.in to include the new SUBDIR? I.E.: Makefile.in : Makefile.am configure.in Earnie.

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ralf> This works perfectly well unless the structure of the configured Ralf> source-tree changes (adding/removing Makefile.ams) or if the Ralf> source-tree contains conditionally configured sub-directories Ralf> (eg. CONFIG_SUBDIRS which

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am Mit, 2002-07-03 um 14.58 schrieb Schleicher Ralph (LLI): > > To the Automake maintainers: please device a way for adding > user-defined > > configure options to configure when re-running configure (e.g., grep > the > > configure command line from co

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

ive to configure) ? > > "make" > > Wrong answer. Read the question more carefully. Nope. The original question was: > Is there any way to set the autotools or something else to regenerate > Makefile.in and Makefile files if I change the Makefile.am ? Or is > there

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

"Schleicher Ralph (LLI)" wrote: > > Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Am Mit, 2002-07-03 um 09.44 schrieb Ionutz Borcoman: > > > Or is there a simple command to do this (but keeping all the options > > > I've give to configure) ? > > "make" > > Wrong answer. Read the question mo

Re: auto-regenerating Makefile.in and Makefile files

Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am Mit, 2002-07-03 um 09.44 schrieb Ionutz Borcoman: > > Or is there a simple command to do this (but keeping all the options > > I've give to configure) ? > "make" Wrong answer. Read the question more carefully. To the Automake maintainers: please

RE: Makefile.in files

> -Original Message- > From: Fausto Sanchez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Makefile.in files > > > > separate area. We use CVS with automake and in our source trees when > we d

Re: Makefile.in files

Sorry about the last email. I figured out the error I was getting and it was all our setup. However, I was wondering if there is a way to create all the Makefile.in files in a separate area. We use CVS with automake and in our source trees when we do a cvs update -d it shows all of the

Makefile.in files

Hi, I used the flag "--output-dir=MYBUILDDIR" in my bootstrap file. When I run bootstrap, the Makefile.in files get created in the buid area instead of the source area( source area is the default behavior ), which is what I want. However, when I do a gmake I get the follo

Re: Deleting Makefile.in in maintainer-clean

On Monday 11 June 2001 10:35 pm, Akim Demaille wrote: > > "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Gary> I never did get the joke with `make mrproper' what is that all > Gary> about anyway?... > > A Procter and Gamble cleaning product. In France ``Monsieur Propre''. > > www.mo

Re: Deleting Makefile.in in maintainer-clean

> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Gary> I never did get the joke with `make mrproper' what is that all Gary> about anyway?... A Procter and Gamble cleaning product. In France ``Monsieur Propre''. www.monsieurpropre.com

Re: system independent Makefile.in ?

>>>>> "Attila" == Attila Csosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Attila> I'm successfully generated system dependent dependency info in Attila> the ".dep" directorys with the following commands: Attila> 'automake;configure;make', af

system independent Makefile.in ?

Hi, I'm working with a project using autoconf, automake. I'm successfully generated system dependent dependency info in the ".dep" directorys with the following commands: 'automake;configure;make', after extracting the packages. How could I get 'Makefile.in&

Re: Deleting Makefile.in in maintainer-clean

On Wednesday 23 May 2001 7:57 pm, Eric Siegerman wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 06:49:46PM +0100, Gary V . Vaughan wrote: > > http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_43.html#SEC43 > > (Minor typo on that page, btw: in "CVS does not preserve > relatively timestamps", delete the "ly"

[cygnus.egcs.patches] Re: make -j patch -- part 1 all targets [gcc/Makefile.in]

-j patch -- part 1 all targets [gcc/Makefile.in] Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 15:48:24 -0700 Organization: None provided Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL

Re: Deleting Makefile.in in maintainer-clean

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 06:49:46PM +0100, Gary V . Vaughan wrote: > On Tuesday 22 May 2001 6:43 pm, Eric Siegerman wrote: > > The bootstrap could be a simple shell script that makes no > > attempt to optimize out unnecessary actions -- after all, you > > would rarely be running it unless all the

Re: Deleting Makefile.in in maintainer-clean

On Tuesday 22 May 2001 6:43 pm, Eric Siegerman wrote: > The bootstrap could be a simple shell script that makes no > attempt to optimize out unnecessary actions -- after all, you > would rarely be running it unless all the actions *were* > necessary. Like this? http://sources.redhat.com/autoboo

Re: Deleting Makefile.in in maintainer-clean

On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 06:46:03PM +0100, Gary V . Vaughan wrote: > On Saturday 19 May 2001 3:41 pm, Reinhard M?ller wrote: > > How about TOTALLYCLEAN or COMPLETELYCLEAN and defining it as removing > > everything that can be rebuilt somehow (e.g. with autoconf, automake, > > libtoolize, etc.) Ye

Re: Deleting Makefile.in in maintainer-clean

> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Gary> Why not, many projects roll a `cvs-dist' and suchlike? It is Gary> certainly orthogonal... If you want to roll back to a clean cvs checkout, there is already a tool to do this. Prefacing it with `make' doesn't add anything, IMHO.

Re: Deleting Makefile.in in maintainer-clean

On Saturday 19 May 2001 3:41 pm, Reinhard M?ller wrote: > Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > > ... but I beleive that such target should not rely on CVS (since > > not everybody use CVS). I'd would prefer to have a > > MAINTAINERDISTCLEANFILES variable in Makefile.am, for > > consistency with other c

Re: Deleting Makefile.in in maintainer-clean

Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > ... but I beleive that such target should not rely on CVS (since > not everybody use CVS). I'd would prefer to have a > MAINTAINERDISTCLEANFILES variable in Makefile.am, for > consistency with other clean-targets. How about TOTALLYCLEAN or COMPLETELYCLEAN and defini

Re: Deleting Makefile.in in maintainer-clean

On Saturday 19 May 2001 1:29 pm, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > >>> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gary> Anyway, I'm happy to check a copy of Pavel's cvsclean > [...] > Gary> If I convert it from perl to shell, would you be > Gary> interested in accepting as a new automa

  1   2   >