Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
>>>> Well, this is what I finally ended up using:
>>>>
>>>> +--- vim71/src/Makefile.orig 2007-05-12 04:57:13.000000000 -0700
>>>> ++++ vim71/src/Makefile 2007-12-18 23:39:14.000000000 -0800
>>>> +@@ -1074,8 +1074,10 @@
>>>> + # default vi editor, it will create a link from vi to Vim when doing
>>>> + # "make install". An existing file will be overwritten!
>>>> + # When not using it, some make programs can't handle an undefined
>>>> $(LINKIT).
>>>> +-#LINKIT = -ln -f -s $(BINDIR)/$(VIMTARGET) /usr/bin/vi
>>>> +-LINKIT = @echo >/dev/null
>>>> ++LINKIT_n = @:
>>>> ++LINKIT_ = $(LINKIT_n)
>>>> ++LINKIT_y = ln -f -s
>>>> ++LINKIT = $(LINKIT_$(LINK_TO_VI))
>>>> +
>>>> + ###
>>>> + ### GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI). {{{1
>>>> +@@ -1761,7 +1764,7 @@
>>>> + $(STRIP) $(DEST_BIN)/$(VIMTARGET)
>>>> + chmod $(BINMOD) $(DEST_BIN)/$(VIMTARGET)
>>>> + # may create a link to the new executable from /usr/bin/vi
>>>> +- -$(LINKIT)
>>>> ++ -$(LINKIT) $(BINDIR)/$(VIMTARGET) $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin/vi
>>>> +
>>>> + # Long list of arguments for the shell script that installs the manual
>>>> pages
>>>> + # for one language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can we get it reviewed, approved, and committed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I prefer having the LINKIT variable have the whole command, so that it
>>> can be anything. Having it all in one line is a lot simpler. So I have
>>> this now:
>>>
>>> # If you are using Linux, you might want to use this to make vim the
>>> # default vi editor, it will create a link from vi to Vim when doing
>>> # "make install". An existing file will be overwritten!
>>> # When not using it, some make programs can't handle an undefined $(LINKIT).
>>> #LINKIT = ln -f -s $(DEST_BIN)/$(VIMTARGET) $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin/vi
>>> LINKIT = @echo >/dev/null
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Well, same request applies:
>>
>>
>> LINKIT_y = ln -f -s $(DEST_BIN)/$(VIMTARGET) $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin/vi
>> LINKIT_n = @:
>> LINKIT_ = $(LINKIT_n)
>> LINKIT = $(LINKIT_$(LINK_TO_VI))
>>
>
> This syntax looks invalid, using () inside (). Another GNU make thing?
>
I'm not aware of any versions of Make that don't support it... Except
the make that comes with Visual C++.
>> Can we do that instead? I'm trying to have a Makefile (and eventually
>> configure.in) that builds with the fewest numbers of patches applied.
>>
>> We're trying to get it into AstLinux 0.5 trunk, but want to be able to
>> use it without having to apply any patches... since the way AstLinux is
>> built is by scripts that pull down source tarballs and then build them
>> according to prepackaged directions. Updating version numbers is a lot
>> easier than updating patches...
>>
>
> If you are making an install script, you are probably much better off
> when you create the link in the install script. Then you can also keep
> track of what has been created. Depending on your installer, of course.
>
>
I'll go back and look at it.
What about the changes that I and Tony submitted for cross-compilation?
-Philip
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
