On Tuesday 2022-02-15 07:16, Daniel Herring wrote:
>
> Maybe a next-generation configuration tool should start by defining interfaces
> for user interactions and build tools. This would allow CLI and easy GUI and
> IDE users, integration with multiple build systems, static and dynamic
>
On Tuesday 2013-05-21 07:33, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
Works for me. But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in the
general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about the much
hated build system not bitrotting until it decides to blow up right when we
need it for a
On Tuesday 2013-02-12 12:19, Yann Droneaud wrote:
Le mardi 05 février 2013 à 19:15 +0100, Jan Engelhardt a écrit :
On Sunday 2013-02-03 10:49, Yann Droneaud wrote:
So to create a valid --build argument, I was going to use
--build=`uname -p`-`uname -s` but its producing 'x86_64-Linux' which
On Sunday 2013-02-03 10:49, Yann Droneaud wrote:
I tried to explain the reasonning behind those patches in the following
thread:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/config-patches/2013-02/msg2.html
Those patches are to be used as part of a kind of a workaround for the
need to give a --build
I have seen the thread at
http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-autoconf@gnu.org/msg03051.html already,
though there is a case where the warning persists:
configure.ac:4: warning: AC_LANG_CONFTEST: no AC_LANG_SOURCE call
detected in body
../../lib/autoconf/lang.m4:194: AC_LANG_CONFTEST is expanded
Hi,
using a configure.ac file with just four lines:
AC_INIT([foo], [1])
AC_PROG_INSTALL
AC_CONFIG_FILES([Makefile])
AC_OUTPUT
I can produce a configure script by running `autoreconf -fi`, however,
running the then-created ./configure leads to:
configure: error: cannot find install-sh,
On Saturday 2009-04-18 19:21, Monty Taylor wrote:
Solaris on Sparc supports both 32 and 64 bit binaries, with builds
defaulting to 32-bit. (Thanks backwards compatibility for proprietary
software!)
On SPARC, choosing 32-bit is an architectural decision rather
than a software or political one.
On Saturday 2008-12-20 19:57, Monty Taylor wrote:
This is what we've been doing so far. It's not terrible, but it does
make for a rather long and ugly command line.
While there are no response files as there were for DOS
compilers (because of the limited command line length),
you can use:
Hello,
is there a simple macro that will test for a specific compiler flag and set
a variable in both Makefile and config.h?
I am looking for an easy way to test for GCC's -fvisibility=hidden and
have an indicator whether or not it is available in said files.
Thanks,
Jan Engelhardt
