Hey guys, I've got all the unit tests running with make check and would now
like to run the integ tests against the 4.0.2 broker.  This way we can draw
a line in the sand that says the activemq-cpp client works against all
brokers >= 4.0.2.  How do I run the integration tests with the new automake
environment?  I'm not seeing an executable around anywhere.

Thanks,
Nate

On 10/26/06, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

That worked - Thanks guys!

On 10/23/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> I'd suggest removing all the old makefiles  before running
> the ./configure, that will avoid any confusion of makefiles.  You
> shouldn't need to older OSTYPE etc stuff with the new ones.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Timothy A. Bish
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:54 pm
> Subject: activemq-cpp build on linux
> To: [email protected]
>
> > I'm stumbling through the new build system on linux ... here's
> > what I did
> > after a fresh check-out ...
> >
> > ./autogen.sh
> > ./configure
> > make -f Makefile
> >
> > The first thing that I noticed was that I have to have the
> environment
> > variables CONFIG and OSTYPE defined, as it appears to be looking
> > for the
> > makefile-linux-debug.cfg file.  Is this expected?  It seems that
> > that was
> > how the old makefile worked - I didn't expect that to be used by
> > the new
> > setup.
> >
> > If I define CONFIG=debug and OSTYPE=linux, then I get an error
> > saying that
> > no target "all-recursive" has been defined:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] activemq-cpp]$ make -f Makefile
> > make  all-recursive
> > make[1]: Entering directory
> > `/home/nmittler/activemq-cpp-workspace/activemq-cpp'
> > make[1]: *** No rule to make target `all-recursive'.  Stop.
> > make[1]: Leaving directory
> > `/home/nmittler/activemq-cpp-workspace/activemq-cpp'
> > make: *** [all] Error 2
> >
> > ... does anyone have an idea of what I might be doing wrong?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nate
> >
>


Reply via email to