Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are we now supposed to edit Makefile.in by hand each time we modify
> Makefile.am?
I hope not. How about the following (untested) Automake patch?
2007-06-20 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* aclocal.in (write_aclocal): Warn about autoconf
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > I would follow that clue and regenerate everything.
> >
> > autoreconf
> > ./configure
>
> Doesn't work:
>
> $ pwd
> /build/libidn-0.6.14
> $ autoreconf
> configure.ac:41: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_LIBTOOL_
Bob Proulx wrote:
> I would follow that clue and regenerate everything.
>
> autoreconf
> ./configure
Doesn't work:
$ pwd
/build/libidn-0.6.14
$ autoreconf
configure.ac:41: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL
If this token and others are legitimate, please us
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Or is there an "obvious" workaround that I'm not seeing?
I don't know how obvious this is because I am in many ways not very
knowledgeable about the internal workings of the autotools but in the
output was a clue.
> aclocal.m4:14: error: this file was generated fo
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 09:18 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Behdad Esfahbod wrote on Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:13:17AM CEST:
> > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 14:31 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > > If you can live with $(EXTRA_PROGRAMS) also
> > > containing the tests, that is. If not, then I'd l
Hi,
This error message
aclocal.m4:14: error: this file was generated for autoconf 2.61.
You have another version of autoconf.
is causing a major regression in the functioning of automake and the GNU
build system. Namely, a change in Makefile.am does not cause a corresponding
change to Ma
automake-1.9:
automake-1.9: ## Internal Error ##
automake-1.9:
automake-1.9: unrequested trace `'
automake-1.9: Please contact .
at /usr/local/share/automake-1.9/Automake/Channels.pm line 562
Automake::Channels::msg('automake', '', 'unrequested trac
