Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in
Stefano this regard: the two setups described above are both already
Stefano supported by the current automake implementation (but the last
Stefano one is not
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano True, and that was even stated in the manual; the whole point
Stefano of ditching support for cygnus trees is that by now those two
Stefano big users are basically not making any real use of the 'cygnus'
Stefano option
automake 1.11.1, autoconf 2.68, libtool 2.4, Fedora 16
I'm cross-compiling a project that has LT_INIT([win32-dll]) and has
programs as well as libraries.
After make I have programs (.exe) as well as libraries in .libs/
make install installs libraries from .libs:
libtool: install:
* HACKING (Working with git): Do not suggest that, to ensure the
bootstrapping process is performed with the latest autotools, the
developer could explicitly pass $AUTOCONF and $AUTOM4TE in the
environment to the ./bootstrap and ./configure invocations: that
is a little tricky and quite fragile.
* HACKING (Working with git) Generated files like 'configure',
'Makefile.in' and 'aclocal.m4' are not committed anymore in our
git repository by some months. Remove obsoleted advices that
assumed they still were.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com
---
HACKING |4
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
* HACKING (Working with git) Generated files like 'configure',
'Makefile.in' and 'aclocal.m4' are not committed anymore in our
git repository by some months. Remove obsoleted advices that
Hi Stefano,
Sorry I didn't see this sooner:
s/advices/advice/
(you may want to
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and
implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12
release.
I agree.
IMHO, you won't go wrong following git.git's example.
diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING
...
+* The Automake git
Hi Peter, thanks for the feedback. But I fear we have a misunderstanding
here. See below.
On 04/02/2012 08:14 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2012-04-02 18:13, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Severity: wishlist
thanks
Hello Automakers.
After some real hand-on experience with the current branching
Hi Jim.
On 04/02/2012 08:47 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and
implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12
release.
I agree.
IMHO, you won't go wrong following git.git's example.
On 2012-04-02 21:42, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Hi Peter, thanks for the feedback. But I fear we have a misunderstanding
here. See below.
On 04/02/2012 08:14 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2012-04-02 18:13, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Severity: wishlist
thanks
Hello Automakers.
After some real
Hi,
I'd like my SUBDIRS variable not to be set when, and only when, the target is
distclean. I can't seem to find a way to do that in my Makefile.am. Is it
possible at all?
Thanks,
jules
On 04/01/2012 06:52 PM, Jules Colding wrote:
Hi,
I'd like my SUBDIRS variable not to be set when, and only when,
the target is distclean. I can't seem to find a way to do that
in my Makefile.am. Is it possible at all?
If you can assume GNU make, yes:
SUBDIRS = foo bar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We are pleased to announce the Automake 1.11.4 maintenance release.
This is mostly a bugfix release, fixing few recent and long-standing
bugs.
It also contains minor enhancements to the 'ar-lib' and 'compile' script
(thanks to Peter Rosin), and adds
Reference:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2012-04/msg2.html
Hello Automakers.
I plan to release a beta for Automake 1.12 in the next days, with the
estimated release date set a couple of weeks after that. If anyone
knows about any pending or new issue for which such a beta
On 04/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in
Stefano this regard: the two setups described above are both already
Stefano supported by the current automake
On 04/02/2012 05:16 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano True, and that was even stated in the manual; the whole point
Stefano of ditching support for cygnus trees is that by now those two
Stefano big users are basically not making
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano True, and that was even stated in the manual; the whole point
Stefano of ditching support for cygnus trees is that by now those two
Stefano big users are basically not making any real use of the 'cygnus'
Stefano option
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano Sorry if I sound dense, but what exactly is the feature you are
Stefano talking about here?
I was under the impression that it would no longer be possible to build
info files in the build tree. But, I see that, according
Hi Peter, thanks for the feedback. But I fear we have a misunderstanding
here. See below.
On 04/02/2012 08:14 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2012-04-02 18:13, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Severity: wishlist
thanks
Hello Automakers.
After some real hand-on experience with the current branching
On 04/02/2012 09:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano Sorry if I sound dense, but what exactly is the feature you are
Stefano talking about here?
I was under the impression that it would no longer be possible to build
info files
Hi Jim.
On 04/02/2012 08:47 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and
implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12
release.
I agree.
IMHO, you won't go wrong following git.git's example.
Hi Stefano,
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
[SNIP]
It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is tested in the
testsuite, and required by other packages anyway). The baseline is: if
you don't want your '.info' files to be distributed, then it should be
easily possible to have them built
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is
Stefano tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages
Stefano anyway). The baseline is: if you don't want your '.info' files
Stefano to be distributed,
On 04/02/2012 10:19 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is
Stefano tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages
Stefano anyway). The baseline is: if you don't want
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Anyway the real use in the src tree is different, IIUC.
Info files are built in the build tree by developers, but put in the
source tree for distribution.
In such a setup, what is the issue with having the '.info' files built
in the
Hi Stefano,
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 04/02/2012 10:19 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarinistefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is
Stefano tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages
Stefano
26 matches
Mail list logo
