On Jun 5, 2009 8:42am, Peter Johansson wrote:
Hi John,
John Wohlbier wrote:
Attached is an example package. What I left out of my original email was
that I'm putting the Makefile.am's out of the src/ directory to enable
building other architecture specific binaries within the same build.
Hope
johnwohlb...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks very much for the help Peter. The goal is to have the headers
installed and preserve the directory structure of the src. ie, after
make install
@prefix@/include/comp1/
comp1.hh
processed.hh
@prefix@/include/comp2/
comp2.hh
I haven't yet looked at your modif
Hi Bob,
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Doesn't any approach which depends on an automatically generated file
assure that the version control system is one step out of date? Every
time you do a 'commit' the version file is one step newer and
therefore needs to be committed.
Your analysis seems to a
Hi,
In my code that isn't installed, i dlopen "my.so":
~/home/russ/myproj/src/libdir/my.so
When i "make install", i want the dlopen to get my.so
from a system location:
/usr/lib/my.so
What "make" variable can i utilize that has a value
dependent on whether the package is installed or not
Thanks! problem was that I had double quoting in AC_INIT.
aa
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> * aaragon wrote on Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 10:11:22PM CEST:
>>
>> So I got all my code up and running and now I want to make a file so I
>> can
>> use my library in another computer. Now, when I try to make d
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Peter Johansson wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Doesn't any approach which depends on an automatically generated file
assure that the version control system is one step out of date? Every time
you do a 'commit' the version file is one step newer and therefore needs to
be com
Hi Bob,
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 06:54:16PM CEST:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Peter Johansson wrote:
>> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>>> Doesn't any approach which depends on an automatically generated file
>>> assure that the version control system is one step out of date? Every
>>>
Hello Peter,
> On Jun 5, 2009 8:42am, Peter Johansson wrote:
>
>> I've attached a modified version of your package for which `make
>> distcheck' works. I'm not sure what structure you desire for the
>> installed header files, but that should be easy to adjust.
could you please post this on-l
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Yes. It assumes the model where anyone who receives the package has the
ability to build and maintain it similar to the original maintainer.
But whether the file is distributed in a package tarball or not is
independent of whether the file is put int
Hi Ralf,
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
could you please post this on-list unless it has huge size; that way,
others can profit (or comment, critize, help, ...), too.
Sorry, I don't understand. I attached the tarball and CC:d the automake
list. Are attachments filtered away when automake list is in
Hi Ralf,
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> * aaragon wrote on Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 09:22:59PM CEST:
>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> > * aaragon wrote on Sat, May 30, 2009 at 07:34:13PM CEST:
>> >> check:all
>> >> @echo "Running tests"
>> >> cd $(TSTDIR) && $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) -s t
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> Yes. Hard-coding something like `git describe` into any
> default/standard Makefile targets is the bane of free software. For
> example, if a project was to hard code it into the 'dist' target then
> only specially privileged maintainers would be allowed to do 'make
> di
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, William Pursell wrote:
I don't understand your use of the phrase "specially privileged".
Do you mean only those people who have access to clone the git
repository?
It could mean that. Best I can tell, there are still other viable
version control systems besides git.
Bob
Hi Peter,
* Peter Johansson wrote on Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 07:50:56PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> could you please post this on-list unless it has huge size; that way,
>> others can profit (or comment, critize, help, ...), too.
>>
> Sorry, I don't understand. I attached the tarball and CC:
* aaragon wrote on Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:05:18PM CEST:
> When deliberately making the tests fail, I still get:
>
> aara...@~/Documents/workspace/cpputils$make check
> Making check in cpputils
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `check'.
> Making check in tests
> make check-TESTS
> FAIL: test001
>
Hello Russell,
* Russell Shaw wrote on Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 06:42:16PM CEST:
> In my code that isn't installed, i dlopen "my.so":
>
> ~/home/russ/myproj/src/libdir/my.so
>
> When i "make install", i want the dlopen to get my.so
> from a system location:
>
> /usr/lib/my.so
>
> What "make" varia
16 matches
Mail list logo
