Hi, Hopefully, the attached patch fixes the both issues.
Best regards, Kazunobu Kuriyama 2016-01-31 18:37 GMT+09:00 Mike Williams <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I have been catching up with latest changes on a BSD system and their has > been a regression in the build over the last month. This seems to have > started with 7.4.994 to replace gdk_pixbuf_new_from_inline(). > > Two issues > > 1) Makefile can no longer be used with BSD make, it requires gmake. This > would be a new dependency when building on BSD systems. The error message > is: > > Using $< in a non-suffix rule context is a GNUmake idiom (Makefile:2651) > > which is the rule for auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h. There will be the same > issue for the .c version of the file. Just need to manually expand $< > which leads on to the next problem. > > 2) Build failure on BSD systems using older versions of gdk-pixbuf. The > same problem occurs with gmake but the build continues. For these systems > GLIB_COMPILE_RESOURCES does not get defined so when make runs the rule it > attempts to run the arguments to glib-compile-resources. For BSD make this > results in the following: > > --target=auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h --sourcedir=../pixmaps --generate > --c-name=gui_gtk --manual-register gui_gtk_res.xml > /bin/sh: /bin/sh: --: unknown option > *** Error 1 in src (Makefile:2651 'auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h') > > With gmake: > > target=auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h --sourcedir=../pixmaps --generate > --c-name=gui_gtk --manual-register gui_gtk_res.xml > /bin/sh: --sourcedir=../pixmaps: not found > Makefile:2651: recipe for target 'auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h' failed > gmake[1]: [auto/gui_gtk_gresources.h] Error 127 (ignored) > > Attached is a diff to fix these issues (overly long lines though), but I > have not tested with a system with the required version of gdk-pixbuf. I > also see that running make twice in a row builds gui_gtk_x11.c each time, > although no code has changed. > > I assume Unix systems with older versions gdk-pixbuf would continue work > ok with the older API. If so, then building current VIM on them has lost > functionality which seems a shame. > > TTFN > > Mike > -- > I'm discriminating. You're choosy. He's picky. > > -- > -- > You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. > Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. > For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php > > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "vim_dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Makefile.patch
Description: Binary data
