On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:01:04AM -0600, Shaun McCance wrote: > On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 11:27 +0200, Stefan Kost wrote: > > Shaun McCance schrieb: > > > Ever since automake 1.9, automake has been spewing garbage like > > > this when you try to build any module that uses gnome-doc-utils: > > > > > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507336 > > > > Does anyone know what a fix would be? What are the rules for "POSIX variable > > name"? Most hits I get when searching for that error tell that its becausem > > fo > > e.g. $(shell ...), but this isn't a variable name. Is the warning maybe > > crap and > > it should be filed as a bug to automake? > > Basically, these "variables" are in fact function calls. These > make functions are GNU extensions. Options: > > 1) Completely rewrite gnome-doc-utils.make to not use these > functions. Comment #3 shows a glimpse of what that would > involve. But it only covers some of the easier cases. I > don't have a lot of confidence I could get it completely > working. And, of course, that is a *huge* change that > would need lots of testing.
Indeed, some $(FUNCTION are quite harder to clean up strictly using shell in the makefile. > 2) Rodney indicated on IRC that this problem doesn't happen > for intltool, because it includes its bits using AC_SUBST. > He seems to think that if we used AC_SUBST_FILE instead of > doing an include, the warnings would disappear. This looks > like a loophole to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if the > automake developers closed it off in a future version. > Note that, with this option, gnome-doc-utils will still > not work with non-GNU makes. You just won't see warnings > telling you so. Along the same lines (though cleaner, or maybe the same, given that I don't understand intltool) would be to do in the configure script whatever logic the $(FUNCTION are doing, and then AC_SUBST the results. However, if... > 3) Decide that we don't support non-GNU make, which we > already don't. that's true, then all we need to do is shut up the warning *somehow*. Don't need to fix problems that only affect a program that isn't allowable anyway. If that's true, would be good to get an autoconf bit to test for it though: checking for GNU make... no Error: gnome-doc-utils requires 'make' that supports GNU Makefile extensions. to avoid later hard-to-diagnose problems during 'make' if there aren't warnings about makefile portability issued. Is there a way to hide only the makefile portability warnings (rather than *all* portability warnings)? dan -- Daniel Macks dma...@netspace.org http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list