On May 25, 2001, "Lawrence, David (STEI)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I meant to mention that RmiInvoke is defined in the static library
> comutil (../comutil/libcomutil.la). The library is linked with both the
> shared library libdmiapi.so and the daemon oncsp.
In the case of static li
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 10:39:14 + (GMT), Martin Hollmichel
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> really multiplatform. And I think at the moment the autotools don't
> want/can to support native non Unix platforms.
For my own needs, I've written a tool, `am2msdev', which creates MS
Dev Studio p
Robert,
Sorry, I meant to mention that RmiInvoke is defined in the static library
comutil (../comutil/libcomutil.la). The library is linked with both the
shared library libdmiapi.so and the daemon oncsp.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Robert Boehne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Frida
"Lawrence, David (STEI)" wrote:
>
> Here is the output of the build log at the point of failure:
>
> Making all in src
>...
> make[2]: Entering directory
> `/home/davel/dev/EmergingProducts/LinuxDMISP_base/build/src/oncsp'
> /bin/sh ../../libtool --mode=link gcc -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -Wall
Robert,
Thank you for your offer of assistance. Please note, I don't believe this
is a tool problem, just a problem with me correctly defining the
Makefile.am(s) to produce the output I need.
The directory structure is as follows:
build
src
include
comutil
inclu
I am new to the Autotools and so may have overlooked the obvious, but I
would appreciate any help/guidance you might be able to provide. I have
reviewed the Autoconf, Automake and Libtool manuals and read the New Riders
"Gnu Autoconf, Automake and Libtool" book.
I am using Autoconf 2.13 and Auto
> > > objc runtime: cannot find class Object
> > > FAIL: objc/execute/_cmd.m execution, -O
>
> > I started looking into the cause of the above. The problem is caused
> > by using libtool rather than gcc to link libobjc.sl.
> > [...]
Here is a libtool fix for the above problem. It changes
> Before I address your points, or at least the ones I plan to address,
> I thought first I would write my own critique of the auto tools.
> While I do think that these tools have deep problems, I also think you
> largely avoided mentioning them.
Yes, you're right, I avoided that. if you're looki
