On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 12:46:02AM -0500, Rick Scott wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, I changed to using GNU make to continue the build, and it
> > completed without failures.
> >
>
> I think this is a requirement for autoconf/automake. They also suggest GNU m4
> and sed. I know that HP's sed used to be brain dead. Not sure now, I never take
> the chance. It's usually simpler to install GNU sed, and while I'm at it, m4
> and make, not to mention gcc. Come to think of it there is not too much HP, or
> Solaris, left when I get things the way I like it :) The first thing is to get
> xmcd compiling, that way you have something to do while waiting for the rest.
> Which take far less time these days.......
Is it?
I looked at the docs now and could not find this demand for GNUmake - instead
I could cite a few locations where it is mentioned that "a make program" is
required or that "gnumake extensions are not supported" and things like that.
Hmm, we discussed things like this already, one of the things I can
dig out from the mailinglist archive is this quote from Danny:
> I have access to, so I never cared about this issue. Do our Makefiles as
>
> generated by auto* really work with common unix make versions?
>
I used FreeBSD until recently, they did work. One of the reasons why we run
automake -i
is that not using -i creates Makefiles that only work on GNUmake.
Meanwhile I dropped a couple of += constructs from CVS, and then ran
into an oddity with SUBDIRS appearing only in conditionals.
(solution seems to be to overwrite an empty/dummy initial value -
in fact I even mailed to the maintainers about this).
So for what it may be worth we will soon have no += constructs left.
--
Alexander Mai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
