On Wed, 2001-10-03 at 19:25, David Oleszkiewicz wrote:
so i want to do something like this
configure.in:
PROGNAME = foo
DIR = ${bindir}/${PROG}
AC_SUBST(DIR)
myfile.h.in:
#define DIR @DIR@
when things resolve out to myfile.h i get
#define CONF_DIR ${exec_prefix}/foo
this is
Hi,
David Oleszkiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
so i want to do something like this
configure.in:
PROGNAME = foo
DIR = ${bindir}/${PROG}
AC_SUBST(DIR)
myfile.h.in:
#define DIR @DIR@
when things resolve out to myfile.h i get
#define CONF_DIR ${exec_prefix}/foo
Look at the GNU
Raja == Raja R Harinath Raja writes:
Raja Hi, David Oleszkiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
so i want to do something like this
configure.in: PROGNAME = foo DIR = ${bindir}/${PROG}
AC_SUBST(DIR)
myfile.h.in: #define DIR @DIR@
when things resolve out to myfile.h i get #define CONF_DIR
Hallo Paul,
Der Name klingt deutsch, aber wegen des CCs auf englisch:
--
Von: Paul Eggert[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2001 19:40
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: Ebcdic rule
From: Pfeiffer Daniel [EMAIL
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:52:11PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
Autoconf is merely a tool for configuring source code for UNIX-like
systems. That problem is hard enough.
I didn't realize that DOS and NT were considered UNIX-like systems.
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:52:03AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
From: Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't realize that DOS and NT were considered UNIX-like systems.
[deleted]
My understanding is that bare DOS is not UNIX-like, but it gets
reasonably UNIX-like if you add enough 3rd-party
From: Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:40:50 -0700
Does that mean that autoconf should limit itself to
the POSIX portable file name character set?
Of course. If Autoconf uses non-POSIX file names (other than as part
of a test for file name portability, or after such
From: Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:40:50 -0700
My understanding is that bare DOS is not UNIX-like, but it gets
reasonably UNIX-like if you add enough 3rd-party software. Similarly
for NT.
And so can EBCDIC based systems.
I'm not opposed to using Autoconf
Paul Eggert wrote:
From: Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:40:50 -0700
Does that mean that autoconf should limit itself to
the POSIX portable file name character set?
Of course. If Autoconf uses non-POSIX file names (other than as part
of a test for file name
