make problem under freebsd

2003-03-09 Thread Lorenzo Bettini
Hi I've just installed freebsd and tried to build one of my package (developed with automake and autoconf) under it. I noticed that there are problems with rules such as foo.o: foo.c gcc -c $< -o $@ in that $< is not expanded... is this a known bug? can it be dealt with with automak

Re: make problem under freebsd

2003-03-09 Thread Paul Smith
%% Lorenzo Bettini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: lb> I've just installed freebsd and tried to build one of my package lb> (developed with automake and autoconf) under it. I noticed that there lb> are problems with rules such as lb> foo.o: foo.c lb>gcc -c $< -o $@ lb> in that $< is

Re: Portability of preprocessor directives

2003-03-09 Thread Paul Smith
%% Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: td> judging by comments I've seen in other mailing lists, it's not td> likely that GNU "make" will be worth bothering with, since it's td> been subjected to incremental incompatibities. Man, you're never happy about anything, are you? Anyway, if

Re: make problem under freebsd

2003-03-09 Thread Lorenzo Bettini
Paul Smith wrote: %% Lorenzo Bettini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: lb> foo.o: foo.c lb> gcc -c $< -o $@ lb> in that $< is not expanded... lb> is this a known bug? Depends on what you mean by "bug". It's not a bug in that it's expected behavior in some versions of make that automati

Re: Portability of preprocessor directives

2003-03-09 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 12:09:09PM -0500, Paul Smith wrote: > %% Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > td> judging by comments I've seen in other mailing lists, it's not > td> likely that GNU "make" will be worth bothering with, since it's > td> been subjected to incremental incompat

Re: Patch to aclocal

2003-03-09 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Philip" == Philip Willoughby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] Philip> I take your point about moving the functionality into Philip> autoconf being the right thing to do, but this doesn't Philip> solve my problem right now. (I haven't heard any Philip> mention of it on [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Installing files from both $top_srcdir and $top_builddir

2003-03-09 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "David" == David Kirkby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] David> examplesdir = $(datadir)/my-package-name/examples David> examples_DATA = example1.bmp example2.bmp etc etc This is expected to work regardless of whether the files are in `.', `$srcdir', or both. David> However, how do I do

Re: Newbie: getopt - the right way

2003-03-09 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Simon" == Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Simon> I want to autoconf/automake the "right way" for including GNU Simon> getopt_long in a C program. Simon> Currently configure.ac has; Simon> AC_SUBST(LIBOBJS) Simon> AC_CHECK_FUNCS(getopt_long , , [LIBOBJS="$LIBOBJS Simon> getop

Re: Question about include makefile

2003-03-09 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Giuseppe" == Giuseppe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Giuseppe> Hi all, Giuseppe> I wrote an Include makefile containing Giuseppe> Autoconf statements like EXTRA_DIST, SUBDIRS, etc. Giuseppe> Well, when I include the makefile above into another Giuseppe> makefile, Automake doesn't set

Re: No dependencies in distribution

2003-03-09 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Paul" == Paul F Kunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Paul> Is there a way to NOT have dependencies in the distributed Paul> Makefile.in file but still use dependency feature in the developer's Paul> build? I'm using automake 1.4p5. Yes, just upgrade to a recent Automake version. Dependenci

Re: automake and using an unsupported compiler

2003-03-09 Thread Alexandre Duret-Lutz
>>> "Michael" == Michael Obster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Michael> Hi, Michael> i have a little problem with autoconf/automake. Michael> i want to compile a program with the command: Michael> fdpl -g -o program -main ownmain.c program.fdpl Michael> ownmain.c is a normal c file. Michael>