* Duft Markus wrote on Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:52:23AM CET:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:48 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> >
> > Oh, nevermind.. You're saying that make will invoke automake to check
> > to see if Makefile.in needs to be updated. I understand, I think,
> > what you were saying.
>
> "Bob" == Bob Friesenhahn writes:
Bob> You have got it exactly. Automake is not the only solution. There
Bob> are other solutions out there which require GNU make and are likely to
Bob> be more automatic as you prefer. One of those solutions (I forget the
Bob> name) is invented by the ori
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
Not if automake flattens it when running automake. The idea was that
automake would translate the wildcard into the full file list.
Oh, nevermind.. You're saying that make will invoke automake to check
to see if Makefile.in needs to be updated. I un
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:48 AM, NightStrike
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I thought this only occurred when "maintainer mode" was turned on,
> and
> >>> that releases should be made with tha
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:48 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought this only occurred when "maintainer mode" was turned on, and
>>> that releases should be made with that turned off. Is tha
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> I thought this only occurred when "maintainer mode" was turned on, and
>> that releases should be made with that turned off. Is that not how it
>> works?
>
> Maintainer mode is optional. Rega
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
I thought this only occurred when "maintainer mode" was turned on, and
that releases should be made with that turned off. Is that not how it
works?
Maintainer mode is optional. Regardless, when using wildcards the
maintainer (i.e. you) will become fru
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Duft Markus wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a philosophical stance that the software we develop is
>>> intended for the software users rather than the software developer.
>>> There is a problem if build behavior is different f
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Duft Markus wrote:
There is a philosophical stance that the software we develop is
intended for the software users rather than the software developer.
There is a problem if build behavior is different for the user than
for the software developer.
Build behaviour wouldn't c
>
> >
[snip]
>
> Also thinking this a little further: especially when I'm working at
> home
> on some free software, I have sometimes only half an hour or something
> like that to spend on developing; I *don't* want to spend this time
> maintaining the build mechanism!! Really: I don't want to do
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
> >
> > Ok, so again, I should be allowed to accept that *potential* risk as
> > being far less than the current situation of *actual* risk which is
> > causing problems. If I knew anything about Perl, I'd just do it
> > myself, but alas, the automake s
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
Ok, so again, I should be allowed to accept that *potential* risk as
being far less than the current situation of *actual* risk which is
causing problems. If I knew anything about Perl, I'd just do it
myself, but alas, the automake
* NightStrike wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 04:46:28PM CET:
> Shouldn't the onus be on me, as the project maintainer, to accept that
> risk and craft the wildcards properly? I for one would wager heavily
> that the probability of that being a problem is FAR less than the
> current problems of main
* NightStrike wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 04:25:58PM CET:
>
> If automake has the ability to flatten the += syntax so that
> non-portable make advances can be used, why can't the same logic apply
> to wildcard usage? The biggest argument against it that I've heard is
> that it is a GNU-only opt
* Jan Engelhardt wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 04:32:24PM CET:
> On Wednesday 2008-12-10 16:04, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >>> i.e., automake will flatten the += and 'make' won't ever see it.
> >
> > I didn't really trust += in my own Automake makefiles since it was not
> > really
> > clear to me in
Hi Bob,
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 04:04:23PM CET:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Tom Browder wrote:
>>> * Tom Browder wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:38:53AM CET:
Is it "legal" to use the "+=" operator in lieu of "\" when listing
members of a variable in Makefile.am's?
>>>
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
Ok, so again, I should be allowed to accept that *potential* risk as
being far less than the current situation of *actual* risk which is
causing problems. If I knew anything about Perl, I'd just do it
myself, but alas, the automake source confounds me :(
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:39:04 +0100
From: Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNU Make Extensions
To: Tom Browder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: automake@gnu.org
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hello Tom,
* Tom Br
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't the onus be on me, as the project maintainer, to accept that
>> risk and craft the wildcards properly? I for one would wager heavily
>> that the probability of that
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
Shouldn't the onus be on me, as the project maintainer, to accept that
risk and craft the wildcards properly? I for one would wager heavily
that the probability of that being a problem is FAR less than the
current problems of maintaining the source file l
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> If automake has the ability to flatten the += syntax so that
>> non-portable make advances can be used, why can't the same logic apply
>> to wildcard usage? The biggest argum
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I didn't really trust += in my own Automake makefiles since it was not really
clear to me in what order the appending would occur
Would it matter? Except for use of := (which I think is non-portable
too), expansion of ${variables} will happen at the l
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, NightStrike wrote:
If automake has the ability to flatten the += syntax so that
non-portable make advances can be used, why can't the same logic apply
to wildcard usage? The biggest argument against it that I've heard is
that it is a GNU-only option. However, I've suggeste
On Wednesday 2008-12-10 16:04, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Tom Browder wrote:
>>> * Tom Browder wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:38:53AM CET:
>>> > Is it "legal" to use the "+=" operator in lieu of "\" when listing
>>> > members of a variable in Makefile.am's?
>>>
>>> Yes. In t
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Tom,
>
> * Tom Browder wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:38:53AM CET:
> > Is it "legal" to use the "+=" operator in lieu of "\" when listing
> > members of a variable in Makefile.am's?
>
> Yes. In this case, an Au
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Tom Browder wrote:
* Tom Browder wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:38:53AM CET:
Is it "legal" to use the "+=" operator in lieu of "\" when listing
members of a variable in Makefile.am's?
Yes. In this case, an Automake extension over portable make syntax,
i.e., automake wil
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Ralf Wildenhues
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Tom,
>
> * Tom Browder wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:38:53AM CET:
>> Is it "legal" to use the "+=" operator in lieu of "\" when listing
>> members of a variable in Makefile.am's?
>
> Yes. In this case, an Autom
Hello Tom,
* Tom Browder wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:38:53AM CET:
> Is it "legal" to use the "+=" operator in lieu of "\" when listing
> members of a variable in Makefile.am's?
Yes. In this case, an Automake extension over portable make syntax,
i.e., automake will flatten the += and 'make'
Is it "legal" to use the "+=" operator in lieu of "\" when listing
members of a variable in Makefile.am's?
For example, instead of
CCFILES = \
one.cc \
two.cc
use
CCFILES = one.cc
CCFILES += two.cc
tThanks.
-Tom
Tom Browder
Niceville, Florida
USA
29 matches
Mail list logo
