Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES

2007-02-14 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Bob Rossi wrote on Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:48:35PM CET: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Bob Rossi wrote on Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:19:20PM CET: > > > > > > One other question. This is in regards to libraries depending on > > > libraries. If library B depe

Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES

2007-02-14 Thread Bob Rossi
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Bob, > > * Bob Rossi wrote on Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:19:20PM CET: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:52:02PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > BTW, all the _DEPENDENCIES that I'm talking about are > > > > libraries that are bui

Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES

2007-02-14 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Bob, * Bob Rossi wrote on Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:19:20PM CET: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:52:02PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > BTW, all the _DEPENDENCIES that I'm talking about are > > > libraries that are built from my own project, but not necessarily in the > > > same Makefile. > >

Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES

2007-02-14 Thread Bob Rossi
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:52:02PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > BTW, all the _DEPENDENCIES that I'm talking about are > > libraries that are built from my own project, but not necessarily in the > > same Makefile. > > OK. You will have to make sure these libraries exist and are up to > date,

Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES

2007-01-29 Thread Bob Rossi
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 08:11:07PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Bob Rossi wrote on Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:57:05PM CET: > > I wonder if this will really fix the > > 'parallel make bug' that someone reported about CGDB. > > Would you give us a chance to look at the bug report? > IOW, please p

Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES

2007-01-29 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Bob Rossi wrote on Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:57:05PM CET: > I wonder if this will really fix the > 'parallel make bug' that someone reported about CGDB. Would you give us a chance to look at the bug report? IOW, please post a link to it. So then, even if you don't report back in two weeks that t

Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES

2007-01-29 Thread Bob Rossi
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:52:02PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hello Bob, > > * Bob Rossi wrote on Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 05:44:59PM CET: > > > > OK, from this suggestion, I'm going to change all _LDADD lines from > > -lfoo to $(top_builddir)/pathto/libfoo.a. > > > > I'll remove all _DEPENDENC

Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES

2007-01-29 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello Bob, * Bob Rossi wrote on Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 05:44:59PM CET: > > OK, from this suggestion, I'm going to change all _LDADD lines from > -lfoo to $(top_builddir)/pathto/libfoo.a. > > I'll remove all _DEPENDENCIES completly. Does this sound like a correct > change to you? Yes. > BTW, all

Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES

2007-01-29 Thread Bob Rossi
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:58:34PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Bob, > > * Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:32:30PM CET: > > > > -std_btree_driver_LDADD = -ladt > > +std_btree_driver_LDADD = libadt.a > > > > -std_btree_driver_DEPENDENCIES = $(top_builddir)/various/adt/src >

Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES

2007-01-27 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Bob, * Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:32:30PM CET: > > -std_btree_driver_LDADD = -ladt > +std_btree_driver_LDADD = libadt.a > > -std_btree_driver_DEPENDENCIES = $(top_builddir)/various/adt/src > +std_btree_driver_DEPENDENCIES = libadt.a Hmm. If libadt.a is built in the s