Re: [Freebooters-devel] Automake/Autoconf
> > Well, I offered help, because I had to edit `Makefile' in order > > to install CVS freeboters (`[a-z]*' matches `CVS', which is a > > directory and won't install). > > Which version of install(1) do you use? In POSIX regular expressions > [a-z] does not match C, just the ASCII character range from 97 to > 122. An exemplary run with install(1) from the GNU coreutils: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ls > A a > [EMAIL PROTECTED] install [a-z]* ~/foo2 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ls ../foo2 > a This must have nothing to with `install', since glob patterns are expanded by the shell. I'm using Bash and it has an option `nocaseglob' (which I apparently have turned on). Paul
Re: [Freebooters-devel] Automake/Autoconf
[ Sorry for the late reply, I forgot this mail in my postponed mailbox ] Paul Pogonyshev wrote: > Well, I offered help, because I had to edit `Makefile' in order > to install CVS freeboters (`[a-z]*' matches `CVS', which is a > directory and won't install). Which version of install(1) do you use? In POSIX regular expressions [a-z] does not match C, just the ASCII character range from 97 to 122. An exemplary run with install(1) from the GNU coreutils: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ls A a [EMAIL PROTECTED] install [a-z]* ~/foo2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ls ../foo2 a > Automake allows one to avoid such > things easily and automates certain tasks like generating a > distribution tarball or making tags. automake is a mess. The created output is close to unreadable and they can't even maintain downwards compatibility. All necessary options can be done in plain make as well. I just added a "make release" target to the Makefile. > My opinion is that "4. Edit the Makefile" is not an acceptable > phrase for a project's README. But it's your project after all. Fixed in CVS. There's now a configure script which supports ./configure --prefix=/usr Cheers, Moritz
Re: [Freebooters-devel] Automake/Autoconf
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Paul Pogonyshev wrote: > > Will you accept a patch that will switch Freebooters to using > > Automake and Autoconf? I volunteer to do this. > > Improvements for the build system are very welcome (e.g. support > for building outside the src directory), but switching > it to the autotools won't happen. > > automake isn't overly useful at all and autoconf is way too > bloated. I have too many hassles with the autotools in my > job that I would carry that burden if I have the choice. Well, I offered help, because I had to edit `Makefile' in order to install CVS freeboters (`[a-z]*' matches `CVS', which is a directory and won't install). Automake allows one to avoid such things easily and automates certain tasks like generating a distribution tarball or making tags. My opinion is that "4. Edit the Makefile" is not an acceptable phrase for a project's README. But it's your project after all. Paul
Re: [Freebooters-devel] Automake/Autoconf
Paul Pogonyshev wrote: > Will you accept a patch that will switch Freebooters to using > Automake and Autoconf? I volunteer to do this. Improvements for the build system are very welcome (e.g. support for building outside the src directory), but switching it to the autotools won't happen. automake isn't overly useful at all and autoconf is way too bloated. I have too many hassles with the autotools in my job that I would carry that burden if I have the choice. Anyway, the offer is appreciated. Cheers, Moritz
