Re: Problems building 2.5 B2
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 06:58:32PM -0500, Ian Turner wrote: > I'm surprised to hear you say that it fails with gmake too, since that's what > I use. What version of GNU make? 3,80 > > > Sorry, it's been too long since I did this. > > You shouldn't need to apply the patch manually; if you take the attachment > and > pipe it into the patch program, it will make the change automatically, like > so: > > patch man/Makefile.am < /path/to/message/attachment > > But if you want to apply the patch manually, read on. > > > So, I read this as repalce the line: > > > > $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< > > > > with > > > > %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl > > > > am I reading this corectly? > > No, you should replace the line > $(man_MANS): %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl > with > %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl > > that is, to remove the $(man_MANS): at the beginning of the line. Thanks, taht, indeed to allow a complet build, once applied. -- U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror - New York Times 9/3/1967
Re: Problems building 2.5 B2
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 05:59:49PM -0500, stan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:59:06PM -0500, Ian Turner wrote: > > > > Try the attached patch, and let me know what happens. Implicit rules hurt > > make's performance (especially global ones like this), but there are not > > many > > targets in that directory anyway, so it is probably not a problem. > > > > Index: man/Makefile.am > > === > > RCS file: /cvsroot/amanda/amanda/man/Makefile.am,v > > retrieving revision 1.31 > > diff -r1.31 Makefile.am > > 94c94 > > < $(man_MANS): %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl > > --- > > > %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl > > Sorry, it's been too long since I did this. > > Here is what my man/Makefile.am looks like: > > > Line 93 ---> $(man_MANS): %: $(MANPAGEDIR)/%.proc.xml xslt/man.xsl > Line 94 ---> $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< > > So, I read this as repalce the line: > > $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< > > with > > %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl > > am I reading this corectly? > No, 94c94 means in the original replace line 94 with line 94 from the modified version. The original line is shown with a '<', the replacement with '>', So it means replace < $(man_MANS): %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl with > %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl Note, if I space them differently $(man_MANS): %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl You can see it is just delete the leading stuff. I hadn't seen the "%:" in my makefile travels. I thought that was going to be the error. Learn and Live. jl -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: Problems building 2.5 B2
I'm surprised to hear you say that it fails with gmake too, since that's what I use. What version of GNU make? > Sorry, it's been too long since I did this. You shouldn't need to apply the patch manually; if you take the attachment and pipe it into the patch program, it will make the change automatically, like so: patch man/Makefile.am < /path/to/message/attachment But if you want to apply the patch manually, read on. > So, I read this as repalce the line: > > $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< > > with > > %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl > > am I reading this corectly? No, you should replace the line $(man_MANS): %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl with %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl that is, to remove the $(man_MANS): at the beginning of the line. -- Zmanda: Open Source Data Protection and Archiving. http://www.zmanda.com
Re: Problems building 2.5 B2
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:59:06PM -0500, Ian Turner wrote: > On Thursday 23 February 2006 22:38, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > The actual complaint is often a big help to those answering. > > > > > $(man_MANS): %: $(MANPAGEDIR)/%.proc.xml xslt/man.xsl > > > $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< > > > > > > Now, it's been a while since I wrote Makefiles, but I must admit that I > > > don't undrstand rh %: myself. > > I have to confess that this is my doing. That line is a "static pattern", > which is different from an implicit rule in that it applies only to the given > targets (in this case, man_MANS). However, it would seem that your make does > not support static patterns. > > Try the attached patch, and let me know what happens. Implicit rules hurt > make's performance (especially global ones like this), but there are not many > targets in that directory anyway, so it is probably not a problem. > > --Ian > -- > Wiki for Amanda documentation: http://wiki.zmanda.com/ > Index: man/Makefile.am > === > RCS file: /cvsroot/amanda/amanda/man/Makefile.am,v > retrieving revision 1.31 > diff -r1.31 Makefile.am > 94c94 > < $(man_MANS): %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl > --- > > %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl Sorry, it's been too long since I did this. Here is what my man/Makefile.am looks like: Line 93 ---> $(man_MANS): %: $(MANPAGEDIR)/%.proc.xml xslt/man.xsl Line 94 --->$(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< So, I read this as repalce the line: $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< with %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl am I reading this corectly? -- U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror - New York Times 9/3/1967
Re: Problems building 2.5 B2
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:59:06PM -0500, Ian Turner wrote: > On Thursday 23 February 2006 22:38, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > The actual complaint is often a big help to those answering. > > > > > $(man_MANS): %: $(MANPAGEDIR)/%.proc.xml xslt/man.xsl > > > $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< > > > > > > Now, it's been a while since I wrote Makefiles, but I must admit that I > > > don't undrstand rh %: myself. > > I have to confess that this is my doing. That line is a "static pattern", > which is different from an implicit rule in that it applies only to the given > targets (in this case, man_MANS). However, it would seem that your make does > not support static patterns. The last time I worried about Makefile efficency was when I was compiling on a 68000 :-) > > Try the attached patch, and let me know what happens. Implicit rules hurt > make's performance (especially global ones like this), but there are not many > targets in that directory anyway, so it is probably not a problem. BTW, gmake doesn't seem to able to handle this corectly, as well as the Sun make that comes with Solaris 10. I'll giv it a try, and report back. > > --Ian > -- > Wiki for Amanda documentation: http://wiki.zmanda.com/ > Index: man/Makefile.am > === > RCS file: /cvsroot/amanda/amanda/man/Makefile.am,v > retrieving revision 1.31 > diff -r1.31 Makefile.am > 94c94 > < $(man_MANS): %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl > --- > > %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl -- U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror - New York Times 9/3/1967
Re: Problems building 2.5 B2
On Friday 24 February 2006 12:07, Jon LaBadie wrote: > What make's do and don't support static patterns? > Is it a candidate for a configure check? I have no idea, but again, it's not a big enough deal, unless there is also some make out there that supports static patterns and chokes on wildcard implicit rules -- unlikely. The Right Way to solve this issue is probably to use m4's looping construct to generate a Make rule for every file. This gives the power of static patterns without Make support. That is not as easy as it sounds, however, because at present the list of manpages to build in a Make variable, not an m4 macro. > > Try the attached patch, and let me know what happens. Implicit rules hurt > > make's performance (especially global ones like this), but there are not > > many targets in that directory anyway, so it is probably not a problem. > > Is compilation time for amanda getting long enough such that make > performance need be a consideration? Unlikely. Again, this only applies to the man/ subdirectory, which has only about 2 dozen files in it. Wildcard implicit rules increase Make running time by the number of targets to build times the number of files in the directory -- since both are small for man/, it's not a problem. --Ian -- Wiki for Amanda documentation: http://wiki.zmanda.com/
Re: Problems building 2.5 B2
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:59:06PM -0500, Ian Turner wrote: > On Thursday 23 February 2006 22:38, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > The actual complaint is often a big help to those answering. > > > > > $(man_MANS): %: $(MANPAGEDIR)/%.proc.xml xslt/man.xsl > > > $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< > > > > > > Now, it's been a while since I wrote Makefiles, but I must admit that I > > > don't undrstand rh %: myself. > > I have to confess that this is my doing. That line is a "static pattern", > which is different from an implicit rule in that it applies only to the given > targets (in this case, man_MANS). However, it would seem that your make does > not support static patterns. > What make's do and don't support static patterns? Is it a candidate for a configure check? > Try the attached patch, and let me know what happens. Implicit rules hurt > make's performance (especially global ones like this), but there are not many > targets in that directory anyway, so it is probably not a problem. Is compilation time for amanda getting long enough such that make performance need be a consideration? -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: Problems building 2.5 B2
On Thursday 23 February 2006 22:38, Jon LaBadie wrote: > The actual complaint is often a big help to those answering. > > > $(man_MANS): %: $(MANPAGEDIR)/%.proc.xml xslt/man.xsl > > $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< > > > > Now, it's been a while since I wrote Makefiles, but I must admit that I > > don't undrstand rh %: myself. I have to confess that this is my doing. That line is a "static pattern", which is different from an implicit rule in that it applies only to the given targets (in this case, man_MANS). However, it would seem that your make does not support static patterns. Try the attached patch, and let me know what happens. Implicit rules hurt make's performance (especially global ones like this), but there are not many targets in that directory anyway, so it is probably not a problem. --Ian -- Wiki for Amanda documentation: http://wiki.zmanda.com/ Index: man/Makefile.am === RCS file: /cvsroot/amanda/amanda/man/Makefile.am,v retrieving revision 1.31 diff -r1.31 Makefile.am 94c94 < $(man_MANS): %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl --- > %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl
Re: Problems building 2.5 B2
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 07:24:34PM -0500, stan wrote: > I'm trying to compile 2.5 beta 2 on Solaris 10 X86. The build is failing in > the man subdirectory. It's complaining about this line in the generated > Makefile: > The actual complaint is often a big help to those answering. > > $(man_MANS): %: $(MANPAGEDIR)/%.proc.xml xslt/man.xsl > $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $< > > Now, it's been a while since I wrote Makefiles, but I must admit that I > don't undrstand rh %: myself. I don't either. Doesn't look right to me. You could try that old standby, vi, and edit it out of there. If it makes the manpages and completes, it probably was extraneous. > > Anyone know what's _suuposed_ to be there? Did something go awry in the > auto build of this Makefile? A few years ago a makefile creation bug creapt into amanda whereby a newline was omitted. Maybe something trivial like that. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
