In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Steingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Berkley db changed prototypes for functions that are struct members.
how do I check for that?
The official word from Sleepycat is that it's much better to statically
link against a known version of BDB that you ship with your
] ?
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
fatal (You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different); -- gcc
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When building from source, one rarely changes needs to make patches to
configure.{in,ac} and then run autotools*.
That depends on your definition of rarely. Of the 550 packages that I
happen with any vendors installed autoconf.
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
fatal (You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different); -- gcc
to autoconf.
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
fatal (You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different); -- gcc
for help in a
Linux specific discussion area (or pester a local guru).
Good luck,
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
fatal (You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different); -- gcc
tests for the existence of libgsl just compile or does it run as
well? If it doesn't run, that could explain the situation here.
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
fatal (You
I see that a lot of packages (bison, for example) use AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT.
Yet, this isn't documented anywhere.
Should maintainers be using AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT? If so, should they be
using AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT or $ac_includes_default. And, should it be
documented?
mrc
--
Mike Castle
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. Strange interactions with autoscan and autom4te.cache. And a possible
bug in autoscan otherwise.
Hmmm. The following patch seems to improve my system a little bit. But
I'm not certain if they are correct.
Looks like
]~/foo(215) autoscan -V
autoscan (GNU Autoconf) 2.57
Written by David J. MacKenzie and Akim Demaille.
So, why different results after nuking autom4te.cache? Also, why is it
bitching about sys_siglist?
Thanks,
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We
values at runtime.
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
fatal (You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different); -- gcc
in updating your autoconf stuff. Your
developers and configuration manager should be.
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
fatal (You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all
configure.in for you.
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
fatal (You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different); -- gcc
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
programming.
mrc
--
Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
fatal (You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different); -- gcc
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:37:22AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Mike Castle writes:
How do you reference the generated make file?
include $(top_builddir)/Makefile.global
This requires that you set top_builddir somewhere.
Well, that's the magic I was wondering about. :-
What
about problems building outside of the source tree.
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and be right all the time, or not work at all
www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc
We are all of us living
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and be right all the time, or not work at all
www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
(for performance reasons, rename
was not made atomic).
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and be right all the time, or not work at all
www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc
We are all of us living
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 01:01:09PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
I believe it would be more constructive to make M$VC accept .cc extention
is some non-interactive way. Anybody knows how?
$(CP) foo.cc foo.cpp
$(CC) foo.cpp
?
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work
time you update them, it's easier to just
link them statically.
Also, if an upgrade goes bad and /lib gets hosed (running out of disk
space for instance), you're possibly stuck with an unusuable system.
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
[EMAIL
hunting, and you want to build for, say
/usr/local/test instead of /usr/local.
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and be right all the time, or not work at all
www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc
that still give you a false answer?
Of course, I'd argue that programs should be written so that endianness
doesn't matter.
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and be right all the time, or not work at all
www.netcom.com/~dalgoda
ment. One problem at a time.
However, I must say, I do NOT like it changing "i386-linux" to
"i386-pc-linux-gnu". That is not what I typed in. If I want to override
it, I want to damn well override it.
mrc
On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 10:39:47AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
nux-gnu
checking target system type... i386-pc-linux-gnu
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and be right all the time, or not work at all
www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc
We are all of us liv
system is no longer
supported?
If so, I'd have to say, this kinda sucks.
I have a bunch of scripts that I use to build packages that I will have to
change. Not to mention, it goes against the history of autoconf, and all
previous documention.
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock
27 matches
Mail list logo
