Re: convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 23:54, Warren Turkal wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: > > Not necessarily - but certainly the common case is for them to be build > > system only. > > Maybe we should consider adding something like host_PROGRAMS. Just to let > you all know why I need this, I am converting libX1

Re: convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Warren Turkal
Robert Collins wrote: > Not necessarily - but certainly the common case is for them to be build > system only. Maybe we should consider adding something like host_PROGRAMS. Just to let you all know why I need this, I am converting libX11 from XFree86 to use autotools for the Freedesktop.org projec

Re: convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] Andrew> Can it ever be correct for a noinst object to be built for the target Andrew> environment? Yes. noinst_ tells Automake not to define rules to install them. For instance these might be programs that are installed with

Re: convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Sander Niemeijer
Yes. At least for libraries. For libtool you use noinst_LTLIBRARIES to create convenience libraries. These are often used as intermediate libraries for a series of object files that are later on included in a final executable or library which /will/ be installed. Regards, Sander On maandag, sep

Re: convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Robert Collins
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 22:31, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:01:24PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 21:22, Warren Turkal wrote: > > > Robert Collins wrote: > > > > yes, > > > > noinst_PROGRAMS = convenience_binaries > > > > > > Can these convenience prog

Re: convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:01:24PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 21:22, Warren Turkal wrote: > > Robert Collins wrote: > > > yes, > > > noinst_PROGRAMS = convenience_binaries > > > > Can these convenience programs be built for the host arch in a > > cross-compiled environmen

Re: convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 13:22, Warren Turkal wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: > > yes, > > noinst_PROGRAMS = convenience_binaries > > Can these convenience programs be built for the host arch in a > cross-compiled environment? No, not without further assistance. autoconf and automake do not support m

Re: convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Robert Collins
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 21:22, Warren Turkal wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: > > yes, > > noinst_PROGRAMS = convenience_binaries > > Can these convenience programs be built for the host arch in a > cross-compiled environment? probably, you'll likely need to override the default build recipe though..

Re: convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Warren Turkal
Robert Collins wrote: > yes, > noinst_PROGRAMS = convenience_binaries Can these convenience programs be built for the host arch in a cross-compiled environment? wt -- Warren Turkal President, GOLUM, Inc. http://www.golum.org

Re: convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Robert Collins
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 19:56, Warren Turkal wrote: > Is there any support in automake for building a binary that will only be > used during the build process? yes, noinst_PROGRAMS = convenience_binaries any rules that depend on one of the binaries should be written as: thing: binary$(EXEEXT)

convenience binaries

2003-09-22 Thread Warren Turkal
Is there any support in automake for building a binary that will only be used during the build process? wt -- Warren Turkal President, GOLUM, Inc. http://www.golum.org