On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 18:40:31 Reuben Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
indeed, part of any other widely used package, and with the following:
In fact, gnulib already has a "gnu-make" module that adds a conditional
which you c
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 18:40:31 Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> indeed, part of any other widely used package, and with the following:
> > In fact, gnulib already has a "gnu-make" module that adds a conditional
> > which you can use to add GNU make-specific cod
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:38:55PM CEST:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
What do you mean by "allow it to be required". You can require it now
for your package using autotools.
Right, and my original question was t
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:38:55PM CEST:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by "allow it to be required". You can require it now
>> for your package using autotools.
>
> Right, and my original question was to ask "how do I require GNU Make in
On Monday 06 April 2009 16:32:35 Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Reuben Thomas wrote on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 09:15:43PM CEST:
> > On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> what would be cool is if automake processed some GNU makeisms in the .am
> >> -> .in step. personally, i use some things like
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
What do you mean by "allow it to be required". You can require it now
for your package using autotools.
Right, and my original question was to ask "how do I require GNU Make in an
autotoolised package?" I'm still don't see an "official" answer to th
Hello Reuben,
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 09:15:43PM CEST:
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>> what would be cool is if automake processed some GNU makeisms in the .am ->
>> .in step. personally, i use some things like $(wildcard) and $(patsubst)
>> because i hate h
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
what would be cool is if automake processed some GNU makeisms in the .am ->
.in step. personally, i use some things like $(wildcard) and $(patsubst)
because i hate having to hand maintain a huge list of files -- i inevitably
add more and forget to updat
On Saturday 04 April 2009 14:55:01 Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > maybe use GNUmakefile.am rather than Makefile.am ? and then keep a dummy
> > Makefile around that merely says "hey sucka, GNU-make only!" and/or just
> > re- run the specified command as gmake .
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
maybe use GNUmakefile.am rather than Makefile.am ? and then keep a dummy
Makefile around that merely says "hey sucka, GNU-make only!" and/or just re-
run the specified command as gmake ...
Thanks. I've actually for one reason and another managed to av
On Saturday 04 April 2009 12:35:08 Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Reuben Thomas wrote on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 01:44:48PM CEST:
> >> I would imagine an AC_MAKE_GNU (or somesuch) that looks at make's help
> >> output, then tries gmake (and gnumake?) if make is
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 01:44:48PM CEST:
I would imagine an AC_MAKE_GNU (or somesuch) that looks at make's help
output, then tries gmake (and gnumake?) if make is not GNU Make.
Oh, and I've just found "check_gnu_make.m4" in autoc
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 01:44:48PM CEST:
> I would imagine an AC_MAKE_GNU (or somesuch) that looks at make's help
> output, then tries gmake (and gnumake?) if make is not GNU Make.
>
> Oh, and I've just found "check_gnu_make.m4" in autoconf-archive.
Ah, I didn't know this m
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
You could test '$MAKE --help' at configure time, but the problem is, few
users remember to use './configure MAKE=gmake && gmake', most just do
'./configure && gmake'. You would teach them! :-)
Ah, so there's no test that does this already?
I would i
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 03 April 2009 20:01:15 Reuben Thomas wrote:
Is there a standard way to make an autotoolised build system require GNU
Make? I'm getting a bit fed up having to express everything in POSIX make
when most systems now seem to have GNU Make, even wh
Hello Reuben,
* Reuben Thomas wrote on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:01:15AM CEST:
> Is there a standard way to make an autotoolised build system require GNU
> Make? I'm getting a bit fed up having to express everything in POSIX make
> when most systems now seem to have GNU Make, even where it's not
On Friday 03 April 2009 20:01:15 Reuben Thomas wrote:
> Is there a standard way to make an autotoolised build system require GNU
> Make? I'm getting a bit fed up having to express everything in POSIX make
> when most systems now seem to have GNU Make, even where it's not installed
> as the default
Is there a standard way to make an autotoolised build system require GNU
Make? I'm getting a bit fed up having to express everything in POSIX make
when most systems now seem to have GNU Make, even where it's not installed
as the default make.
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org/ | fiction, n. fact without
18 matches
Mail list logo
