[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autogen.sh warnings
From: |
Colin Watson |
Subject: |
Re: autogen.sh warnings |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:40:27 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 02:28:19PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:38:06AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> configure.ac:176: required file `./config.rpath' not found
>>>
>>> The can be fixed by `touch config.rpath`
>>
>> configure does actually run this, so I'd recommend copying the file from
>> gettext or gnulib instead.
>
> The gettext version is a shell script about 670 lines long that is
> described:
>
> # Output a system dependent set of variables, describing how to set the
> # run time search path of shared libraries in an executable.
>
> I'm not sure GRUB uses or needs the output of config.rpath. I was just
> suppressing a warning.
It is very likely to be incorrect to suppress a warning about a missing
executable by touching an empty file.
As I said, configure does use the output of config.rpath. You can verify
this for yourself by searching the configure script. Whether it makes a
practical difference probably depends on the platform.
>> This is likely to be delicate since we're not actually using Automake as
>> such, and we already have a separate Makefile.in which needs to not be
>> overwritten. I think adding a Makefile.am would make it just too easy to
>> clobber that by accident, even if it does suppress a warning message.
>
> You are probably right. It looks like Makefile.in is basically
> destroyed. Not good. It looks like automake thinks it knows more than
> it's users
Automake's warning is pretty much correct, as it happens. GRUB is really
using it in a non-recommended way, but it is not at all straightforward
to either avoid using it (since the gettext build system rather likes
having it) or to use it properly (which involves a complete build system
revamp).
> and we'll have to live with the warning about missing
> SUBDIRS. I think I could print out a message to ignore the spurious
> warning.
>
> Do you want a new patch?
Seems reasonable, yes.
--
Colin Watson address@hidden
- autogen.sh warnings, Bruce Dubbs, 2009/12/07
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Robert Millan, 2009/12/09
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Bruce Dubbs, 2009/12/09
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Felix Zielcke, 2009/12/09
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Bruce Dubbs, 2009/12/09
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Felix Zielcke, 2009/12/09
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Bruce Dubbs, 2009/12/10
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Felix Zielcke, 2009/12/10
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Bruce Dubbs, 2009/12/10
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Robert Millan, 2009/12/24