1) I had a line like this in my configure.in:
test -f somefile.in AC_OUTPUT(somefile)
This works fine with configure, but automake really doesn't like it:
configure.in:337: required file `./test.in' not found
configure.in:337: required file `./-f.in' not found
GNU make used to use the automake --generate-deps option, which is now
missing :(.
The thing is, GNU make runs on a number of systems where it's not
possible to run the configure script, etc. For the use of these
systems, GNU make ships various pre-built makefiles, which are
constructed from
%% Stephen Torri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
st On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 23:11, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 10:33:40PM -0500, Stephen Torri wrote:
AM_CFLAGS - compile time flags
AM_CPPFLAGS - preprocessor flags (e.g. -I, -D)
AM_LDFLAGS - linker flags (e.g. -L)
%% Alexandre Duret-Lutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul noinst_PROGRAMS = loadavg
Paul nodist_loadavg_SOURCES = loadavg.c
Paul loadavg_CFLAGS = -DTEST
Paul loadavg_LDADD = @GETLOADAVG_LIBS@
Paul loadavg.c: $(srcdir)/getloadavg.c
Paul cp $(srcdir)/getloadavg.c loadavg.c
adl
%% Thomas Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
td judging by comments I've seen in other mailing lists, it's not
td likely that GNU make will be worth bothering with, since it's
td been subjected to incremental incompatibities.
Man, you're never happy about anything, are you?
Anyway, if you'd
%% Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
pe The GNU FTP server has been frozen since late July; nothing new
pe has appeared on it. I don't know what the holdup is.
It's not the entire server: the server was cracked (surely you heard
about this?) and so they took off all the content until it
%% John W. Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jwe Maybe a better place to get the current versions of these files is
jwe here:
jwe http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config/
jwe It seems to me that instead of copying the files to the GNU ftp
jwe server (even if it could be done
Hi all;
In the GNU make package I don't have a README file when it is first
checked out from CVS. There is a README.in which is translated into a
README, replacing the version info etc.
This used to work but now automake is failing:
Makefile.am: required file `./README' not found
Any hints
That worked! Thanks Andreas.
--
---
Paul D. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] HASMAT--HA Software Mthds Tools
Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional. --Mad Scientist
%% Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I need a way to have a file marked as a config file, but not have
configure (or automake) fail if the .in input file doesn't exist.
ad Hm... What is the service you are expecting? You say that
ad configure shouldn't fail, but if it's a
%% Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ad If you have a bootstrap script, why wouldn't it create a fake
ad file, run autoreconf, and them create the right file?
I don't have a bootstrap script for building out of CVS. I could create
one, I guess.
ad Finally, note that you are allowed
%% Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ad Finally, note that you are allowed to ask config.status to perform
ad substitutions on files it doesn't know[1]. In your case, I'm unsure
ad binding the instantiation to configure instead of make is right.
Doh!
I thought this would be the
%% Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suppose I could tell those folks to run the config.status step by
hand, but I'd really like to get this built through the configure
script. Ideas?
rw dnl ...
rw AC_CONFIG_FILES([Makefile])
rw AC_OUTPUT
rw touch foo.in
rw
%% Dmitry V. Levin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
dvl Upcoming version of GNU Make introduces new incompatibility.
dvl The NEWS file says:
dvl * WARNING: Backward-incompatibility!
dvl GNU make now implements a generic second expansion feature on the
dvl prerequisites of both explicit and
%% Ed Hartnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
eh SUBDIRS = man
eh if BUILD_F77
eh SUBDIRS += fortran
eh endif
eh SUBDIRS += libsrc nc_test ncgen ncdump nctest
eh # If we're building the f77 API, test it too.
eh if BUILD_F77
eh SUBDIRS += nf_test
eh endif
There's a much better way
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 19:46 +, Harlan Stenn wrote:
I'm getting bitten by the VPATH-handling differences between FreeBSD's
make and gmake.
The automake manual says (somewhere) that the only version of make that
correctly supports out-of-the-tree builds is GNU make. The VPATH
capability in
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 01:00 +, Harlan Stenn wrote:
IME, that position is excessive. It was true, as far as I can recall,
for SGI's make, but this is the first time this particular issue has
bitten me (or any of the users of the package) in a *long* time.
Hm. Maybe automake works around
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 15:34 -0700, John Calcote wrote:
This question is somewhat related to the last one I asked. Where
should I use @top_srcdir@, and where should I use $(top_srcdir)?
The answer is, you should ALWAYS use the make variable, and NEVER use
the automake variable. There may be
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 16:39 -0330, Sam Bromley wrote:
But in the generated Makefile, the line
libTclParseArgv_la_LDFLAGS += -L/usr/lib -ltclstub8.4
shows up at the *end*, after any other targets are
defined.
And this is a problem because... why? Does something actually not work?
--
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 23:21 +0200, David Sveningsson wrote:
Thanks, this solved my problems. It doesn't seem work if I use tabs
for indentation, but spaces works fine. Is this expected behavior?
I've used tabs in many other places and it seem to work. I cannot
find any section in the manual
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 15:55 -0600, John Calcote wrote:
Andreas Schwab wrote:
John Calcote [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Make is a two-pass utility. The first pass completely assimilates
all
macro data specified in the Makefile. THEN, the second pass
generates
the rule dependency tree.
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 21:41 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
When run in parallel (-jN) mode, make doesn't guarantee any order of
rule execution except that implied by the dependency relations.
To be really, really pedantic: even in parallel mode, make (currently)
always relies on the order in
On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 09:47 -0700, rrlangly wrote:
Well, yeah. I am using linux, and there is an openal package that I've
already installed and like I've shown
Hi Richard; actually what Bob means is that most distributions these
days are separating a single project (especially one that contains
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 22:06 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
BTW, while you're here, is there chance for a new GNU make release
soonish with the bug fixed that prevented GCC from using dependency
tracking? (IIRC it dealt with order-only deps.)
Hi Ralf; sorry for the delay.
Is this bug already
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 21:50 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I'm not sure whether it's fixed. I think it's first mentioned here,
which also points to some bug numbers:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/158072/focus=159249
Ah. Yes, that's fixed.
You can try GraphicsMagick for a
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 14:04 +0200, Vincent Torri wrote:
Is it possible to add 2 features :
1) adding a percentage at the beginning of the line
People often ask for this, but it's not possible: a percentage of what?
The way make works, it has absolutely no idea how much work there is
left to
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 23:32 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
# old fashioned suffix rule, portable
.xcf.bmp:
$(GIMP) -i -b '(xcf-bmp $ $@)' -b '(gimp-quit 0)'
Hey, maybe Automake hackers can riff off this thread in time for
the next release... (or, Would you like me to
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 20:51 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I am talking about executing make after the source has been built once. E.g.
there is only one file changed and I want to rebuild the library with this
single new file. My benchmark is to type 'time make' on unchanged source.
From
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 23:33 +0200, Holger Freyther wrote:
On 10/27/2010 10:25 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 20:51 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
But I do have libgstreamer dev packages installed:
webkit-1.3.5$ locate gst.h
/usr/include/gstreamer-0.10/gst
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:18 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
Is there anything I can help with? bisect GNU make 3.81 - 3.82 to see when
it
got slower? Or anything on our GNU make/automake usage? E.g. we use a non
recursive makefile
I'll try to look into this more this afternoon/tonight. Until
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 21:01 +0100, Pippijn van Steenhoven wrote:
I am root on my (Linux) system and I set the stack size to unlimited.
The libtool macro reported a few billion (or something other really
large) for maximum argument list length, bash also agreed (it easily
executed the distdir
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 21:57 +0100, Xan Lopez wrote:
Any idea to bypass this whole mess?
You can create one or more libxxx.a files from subsets of your objects,
and link with those.
--
---
Paul D. Smith psm...@gnu.org
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 12:50 -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
FYI, ClearCase's clearmake is actually based on GNU make source code.
At least it was back when I was using it.
Not that it matters but this is not _quite_ true... otherwise clearmake
would fall under the GPL.
What clearmake used to do
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 20:38 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 08:32:01PM CET:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
You can implement hash-based dependencies inside GNU make if you like.
Or another make. Maybe someone has even done so
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 19:57 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:55:17PM CET:
Where do these terms 'alpha' and 'beta' build system originate from?
I've read them in
http://gittup.org/tup/build_system_rules_and_algorithms.pdf.
No idea whether
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 17:28 +0100, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
When having a source three constructed of several (sub-)
packages, how does a Beta-Build system looks like? Could there be
tupfiles including sub-tup-files?
What influence has the choice of a Beta-Build to the
maintainability of such
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 22:30 +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
That Linux distributions usually come with a good set of autotools is
irrelevant, since in my understanding all developers of *one* project
should work with the *same* autotools versions. Of course, the project
might also compile
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 01:16 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Justin,
* Too, Justin A. wrote on Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:33:26PM CEST:
FOO=1 2
$(FOO:=bar) = 1bar 2bar.
Is there a way to prepend bar?
This is a GNU make question, or maybe a Posix make question, depending
on what
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:56 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
1. We start requiring GNU make in an experimental automake 2.0
development line (which might, and will, break whathever
backward-compatibility gets in its way).
If you go this route, then it's critical that the minimal set
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 19:50 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
On 11/22/2011 7:46 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
P.S. I choose to be a 1 percenter.
Do we let OpenVMS drive Autotools' direction, too? OS/2? BeOS?
Ooops, nope. GNU make probably shipped on those platforms, too. :)
As a matter of fact
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 18:33 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
But I recall there had been massively broken gmake
releases and releases with major functional changes, which had broken
a lot.
I don't believe that this is so. There have been changes which broke
some makefiles here and there, and
On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 20:35 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
What automake does for source files it knows about is just include
$(DEPDIR)/srcfile.Po (apparently include is considered portable
make?).
It's not considered portable make.
Still, it's worth noting that it works with every
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 17:01 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
That is because of this automake-generated rule:
undefine.log: undefine
The trouble is that undefine is an operator in GNU make.
The most pragmatic work-around is to rename the undefine test script.
However, Stephano, as automake
On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 07:25 -0700, Jordan H. wrote:
Hello, folks!
In learning automake I keep looking at example configure.ac files and in
the tutorial someone says oh, you can just use this here macro. I look
in the automake manual, though
On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 08:26 -0700, Jordan H. wrote:
Right. I understand that much. My question is about autoconf (sorry
about saying auto*make*). I see a lot of macros that tutorial authors
use for which I don't see any documentation.
Well it depends on the macro. The one you mentioned by
I'm removing automake from this thread as I'm getting two copies of
every mail. Hope no one minds.
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 03:06 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 02 June 2013 01:10:36 Kip Warner wrote:
On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 23:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
be aware that what ever
On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 20:46 -0400, PenguinDude24 wrote:
What I think happened is that obviously there was some internal error
with heuristics that GNU Make (and most likely others), and the
heuristics engine could not figure out how to parse that long line
(maybe was not expecting data to
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 17:09 +, Paul Jakma wrote:
> Well, it's due to the distributed 'doc/quagga.info' being slightly
> older than the (built by automake) doc/defines.texi.
I don't understand this: if doc/defines.texi is needed by quagga.info
then why doesn't quagga.info depend on it?
And if
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 15:48 +, Paul Jakma wrote:
> make[4]: Entering directory
> '/home/paul/code/quagga/quagga-1.2.0/_build/sub/doc'
> MAKEINFO ../../../doc/quagga.info
> mkdir: cannot create directory ‘.am8211’: Permission denied
> could not open ../../../doc/quagga.texi: No such file or
On 3/15/19 6:16 AM, Gregorius van den Hoven wrote:
> > My apologies. The algorithm is licensed under GPL 3 so it
> > seemed relevant to the GNU community to me. Do you have a
> > suggestion for a more appropriate mailing list?
I don't see any need for the somewhat harsh response you received
On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 11:01 -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
> GNU Make integrates with guile. Maybe such extension can be
> done using guile for flexibility?
The problem is that hardly any standard distributions build GNU make
with Guile support enabled. If this was used basically it would end up
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 08:33 -0500, Laurence Marks wrote:
> In the same way as autoXZY sets up Makefiles in an OS independent
> fashion, there should be a way to autoupdate autoXYZ files for each
> system without user intervention. (I don't mean automake itself or
> similar, I do mean only the
On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 15:37 -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> I have been told by several people (who have much more self-esteem
> than me) that a build tool called 'cmake' is far more portable than
> Autotools so maybe we should make support for 32 year old systems
> cmake's responsibility?
On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 16:59 -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> The people who tell me it is more portable are very interested in
> targeting Microsoft Windows.
Unsurprising :).
Just to be clear, cmake can't/won't help you write programs that are
portable to Windows. If you are targeting the W32
On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 05:27 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > So what the heck?[...] >These always worked before. But now, Jim
> > gets hundreds of failures with the first
>
> Make was in the news recently, maybe that's the component to
> switch out for an earlier version?
>
> 7ad2593b Support
On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 15:24 -0600, Karl Berry wrote:
> What troubles me most is that there's no obvious way to debug any
> test failure involving parallelism, since they go away with serial
> execution. Any ideas about how to determine what is going wrong in
> the parallel make? Any way to make
56 matches
Mail list logo
