Am Sam, 2002-02-02 um 08.34 schrieb Tom Tromey:
> > "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tom> Automake used PACKAGE with a specific meaning for years. It is
> Tom> unfortunate that Autoconf has chosen to use the same name with a
> Tom> different meaning. But I don't wish to b
I make heavy use of AM_CONDITIONAL in my Makefile.ams, mainly for
conditional compiliation of stuff. This now works really well with
automake 1.5 (it required nasty hacks with 1.4).
My question is, although I use
if CONDITIONAL
FOO
else
BAR
endif
in Makefile.am, and this becomes
@CONDITIONAL_
> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ralf> The 3rd parameter of AC_INIT_AUTOMAKE (Suppress AC_DEFINE-ing of
Ralf> PACKAGE and VERSION)
We already handle this. The new way to use AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is to
pass automake options to it. One of the options is "no-define", which
a
> "Roger" == Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roger> in Makefile.in, is it safe to use this format in my own .in files (e.g.
Roger> po/POTFILES.in), or will the format used for the conditionals in .in
Roger> files change at a future date? What I need to do is have lines
Roger> conditi
VORTEX SUPPLIES
-SPECIALS OF THE DAY ON LASER TONER SUPPLIES AT DISCOUNT PRICES--
ORDER BY PHONE:1-888-288-9043
ORDER BY FAX: 1-888-977-1577
E-MAIL REMOVAL LINE: 1-888-248-4930
UNIVERSITY AND/OR SCHOOL PURCHASE ORDERS WELCOME. (NO CREDIT APPROVAL REQUIRED)
ALL OTHER PURCHASE OR
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> Now if that causes real problems, not just esthetics, then of
Akim> course it ought to be fixed.
Sometimes these esthetic considerations are important -- to me
anyway. Also, in this case there is a small performance penalty for
the
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:07:15AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Roger" == Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Roger> in Makefile.in, is it safe to use this format in my own .in files (e.g.
> Roger> po/POTFILES.in), or will the format used for the conditionals in .in
> Roger> files ch
> "Roger" == Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roger> OK. I though that in the past I could only have one line between
Roger> if-endif or if-else or else-endif.
It has always worked to put a lot of stuff inside the condition.
Tom
