[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > auto* killed itself on gtk-gnutella. It left us with an uncompilable > gtk-gnutella source tree when we wanted to create a release.
well, yous must have been doing something wrong... its used in much larger projects like glibc, gcc, mozilla and emacs: i dont see how gtk-gnutella can possibly be over-stretching its powers. gtk+ itself uses the GNU auto tools... so you're guaranteed that any target you want to build gtk-gnutella for, will be able to handle the compile procedure. > So far I like metaconfig better, I don't > need to run automake, autoheader and I don't know what more just to > include one extra source file. was `autoreconf' not designed to do all this for you? adding an extra source file to the procedure with the GNU auto tools is trivial... it should just be one extra entry in a Makefile.in file. i really don't see what gtk-gnutella could be doing that pushes autoconf so far that it can't handle it. i daren't even try compiling on a SUN or FreeBSD machine... or even attempt NLS! well, despite the fact that i think this is a very silly thing to do... it is done and we must all live with it now. it would be very helpful, and it could possibly help persuade me why this is a good idea... if someone could please tell me how to script this new Configure file in non-interactive mode? does it take command line options like configure did? how can i find them out without having to run the script directly, e.g. the way `configure --help' worked? cheers, Sam -- Well let's call them, uh, Mr. X and Mrs. Y. So anyway, Mr. X would say, `Marge, if this doesn't get your motor running, my name isn't Homer J. Simpson.' ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Gtk-gnutella-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk-gnutella-devel
