Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 23:05:14 +0100: > On 21.12.2012 20:41, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 19:40:03 +0100: > >> On 21.12.2012 19:17, Philip Martin wrote: > >>> Branko Čibej writes: > >>> > On 21.12.2012 18:30, Philip Martin wrote: > >

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.12.2012 20:41, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 19:40:03 +0100: >> On 21.12.2012 19:17, Philip Martin wrote: >>> Branko Čibej writes: >>> On 21.12.2012 18:30, Philip Martin wrote: > Branko Čibej writes: > >> Does "make EXTRA_CFLAGS=..." not

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 19:40:03 +0100: > On 21.12.2012 19:17, Philip Martin wrote: > > Branko Čibej writes: > > > >> On 21.12.2012 18:30, Philip Martin wrote: > >>> Branko Čibej writes: > >>> > Does "make EXTRA_CFLAGS=..." not give you exactly that? > >>> I want to set th

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
The current set of changes on the branch was tested on Mac OS, Linux and FreeBSD, and appears to work as advertised. See detailed description in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/branches/tweak-build-take-two/BRANCH-README I think the branch is ready to be merged to trunk. If no-one obje

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.12.2012 19:17, Philip Martin wrote: > Branko Čibej writes: > >> On 21.12.2012 18:30, Philip Martin wrote: >>> Branko Čibej writes: >>> Does "make EXTRA_CFLAGS=..." not give you exactly that? >>> I want to set the flags at configure. >> Sure, I understand that. But in order to do that,

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Philip Martin
Branko Čibej writes: > On 21.12.2012 18:30, Philip Martin wrote: >> Branko Čibej writes: >> >>> Does "make EXTRA_CFLAGS=..." not give you exactly that? >> I want to set the flags at configure. > > Sure, I understand that. But in order to do that, we'd have to introduce > another variable besides

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.12.2012 18:30, Philip Martin wrote: > Branko Čibej writes: > >> Does "make EXTRA_CFLAGS=..." not give you exactly that? > I want to set the flags at configure. Sure, I understand that. But in order to do that, we'd have to introduce another variable besides C(XX)FLAGS, because those overrid

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Philip Martin
Branko Čibej writes: > Does "make EXTRA_CFLAGS=..." not give you exactly that? I want to set the flags at configure. -- Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.12.2012 18:07, Philip Martin wrote: > Philip Martin writes: > >> Branko Čibej writes: >> >>> On 21.12.2012 16:36, Philip Martin wrote: So the build system used to strip -std=c89 and now does not. If I remove -std=c89 from SWIG_RB_COMPILE in Makefile the build works. >>> Thanks. A

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.12.2012 18:12, Philip Martin wrote: > Branko Čibej writes: > >> On 21.12.2012 18:03, Branko Čibej wrote: >>> On 21.12.2012 18:02, Philip Martin wrote: Branko Čibej writes: > On 21.12.2012 16:36, Philip Martin wrote: >> So the build system used to strip -std=c89 and now doe

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Philip Martin
Branko Čibej writes: > On 21.12.2012 18:03, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 21.12.2012 18:02, Philip Martin wrote: >>> Branko Čibej writes: >>> On 21.12.2012 16:36, Philip Martin wrote: > So the build system used to strip -std=c89 and now does not. If I > remove -std=c89 from SWIG_RB_COMP

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Philip Martin
Philip Martin writes: > Branko Čibej writes: > >> On 21.12.2012 16:36, Philip Martin wrote: >>> So the build system used to strip -std=c89 and now does not. If I >>> remove -std=c89 from SWIG_RB_COMPILE in Makefile the build works. >> >> Thanks. Apparently I either missed that somehow, or this

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.12.2012 18:03, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 21.12.2012 18:02, Philip Martin wrote: >> Branko Čibej writes: >> >>> On 21.12.2012 16:36, Philip Martin wrote: So the build system used to strip -std=c89 and now does not. If I remove -std=c89 from SWIG_RB_COMPILE in Makefile the build works

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.12.2012 18:02, Philip Martin wrote: > Branko Čibej writes: > >> On 21.12.2012 16:36, Philip Martin wrote: >>> So the build system used to strip -std=c89 and now does not. If I >>> remove -std=c89 from SWIG_RB_COMPILE in Makefile the build works. >> Thanks. Apparently I either missed that so

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Philip Martin
Branko Čibej writes: > On 21.12.2012 16:36, Philip Martin wrote: >> So the build system used to strip -std=c89 and now does not. If I >> remove -std=c89 from SWIG_RB_COMPILE in Makefile the build works. > > Thanks. Apparently I either missed that somehow, or this option came > from the Ruby comp

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.12.2012 16:36, Philip Martin wrote: > So the build system used to strip -std=c89 and now does not. If I > remove -std=c89 from SWIG_RB_COMPILE in Makefile the build works. Thanks. Apparently I either missed that somehow, or this option came from the Ruby compile flags, not ours. Will try to

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Philip Martin
Branko Čibej writes: > Can you post the actual compiler-via-libtool invocation, so that I can > see which options came through to confuse the compiler? This is the working line (with a number of compiler flags from my normal build): /bin/sh /home/pm/sw/subversion/obj/libtool --tag=CC --silent -

Re: Second try at build system changes [was: svn commit: r1424922]

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.12.2012 16:03, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 15:03:15 +0100: >> You probably noticed that I made a bunch of build system modifications >> on a branch. The individual changes are described in the BRANCH-README >> file (see below), with "svn diff" invocations

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
On 21.12.2012 15:55, Philip Martin wrote: > Branko Čibej writes: > >> Please take time to review these changes and test them. I did my best to >> test on Mac OS and Linux, but as we saw in the previous iteration, >> autoconf isn't exactly obvious. As usual, I can't build swig-db and >> swig-py, bu

Re: Second try at build system changes [was: svn commit: r1424922]

2012-12-21 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 15:03:15 +0100: > You probably noticed that I made a bunch of build system modifications > on a branch. The individual changes are described in the BRANCH-README > file (see below), with "svn diff" invocations that make it easier to > review each change. >

Re: Second try at build system changes

2012-12-21 Thread Philip Martin
Branko Čibej writes: > Please take time to review these changes and test them. I did my best to > test on Mac OS and Linux, but as we saw in the previous iteration, > autoconf isn't exactly obvious. As usual, I can't build swig-db and > swig-py, but did touch their configury. A plain 'make' work

Second try at build system changes [was: svn commit: r1424922]

2012-12-21 Thread Branko Čibej
You probably noticed that I made a bunch of build system modifications on a branch. The individual changes are described in the BRANCH-README file (see below), with "svn diff" invocations that make it easier to review each change. Please take time to review these changes and test them. I did my be