Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 00:04:02 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 341 ************************************************** Wednesday 07 April 2004 Number 341 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Dmake : John Poltorak 2 Re: Dmake : Neil Waldhauer" 3 Re: Dmake : John Poltorak 4 Re: config.h.in : Andreas Buening 5 libtool typo ? : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:15:47 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Dmake There is an updated version of Dmake for OS/2 on Hobbes if anyone is interested. Apparently it is required when building Open Office. Anyone know if it's possible to use DMAKE as a replacement for GNU Make? -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:56:18 -0700 From: "Neil Waldhauer" Subject: Re: Dmake On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:15:47 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > There is an updated version of Dmake for OS/2 on Hobbes if anyone is > interested. I use Dmake 4.0 for my emx (gcc 2.8.x) builds. Will this new dmake work OK for old stuff? Neil -- Neil Waldhauer, neil at blondeguy.com She's always late. Her ancestors arrived on the Juneflower. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:00:51 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Dmake On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 09:56:18AM -0700, Neil Waldhauer wrote: > On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:15:47 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > There is an updated version of Dmake for OS/2 on Hobbes if anyone is > > interested. > > I use Dmake 4.0 for my emx (gcc 2.8.x) builds. Will this new dmake work OK for > old stuff? Give it a try and report back. > Neil > -- > Neil Waldhauer, neil at blondeguy.com > > She's always late. Her ancestors arrived on the Juneflower. -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:00:39 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: config.h.in John Poltorak wrote: > > It has only just struck me that config.h.in is an automatically generated > file created by autoheader, so presumably if it has been created by a > version of autoheader which comes from a different version of autoconf > than the one being used locally, then there is some possibility of a > version conflict... I have no idea about the nature o any conflict, but if > the possibility is there then does it make sense to automatically run > autoheader as well as autoconf when building an app? If your installed auto* version is older than the version _requested_ by the app, (which doesn't necessarily mean that's the _required_ version) then it won't work, of course. You would get a "this file requires auto* x.y" message. Apart from that: If you use a combination of autoconf/automake which wasn't released together, you may have to remove the autom4te.cache subdirectory before you switch between autoconf and automake (I discovered this feature yesterday). Bye, Andreas **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:57:45 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: libtool typo ? There seems to be a typo in acinclude.m4 of Innotek's libtool here:- test -n "$_LT_AC_TAGVAR(runpath_varm, $1)" || \ Should that be _varm instead of _var ? -- John