[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Need help with cleaning up a working GNU Autotools setup

From: olbl03
Subject: Re: Need help with cleaning up a working GNU Autotools setup
Date: 10 Oct 2005 09:02:54 -0700
User-agent: G2/0.2

Peter T. Breuer skrev:

> In comp.os.linux.development.system wrote:
> > 2) Create the build directory
> > mkdir ../build
> (I presume he's in the source). Well yes, that's what we/i told him to
> do.

According to previous discussions and my executed commands, yes.

> > 3) Add the following into the Makefile.ams of the subdirectories:
> This is only a precompiler flag for where to look up includes. It
> doesn't do anything about source, much less source in subdirs. This
> won't do anything that I can see. One would generally already have had
>    CPPFLAGS += -I $(TOPDIR)/include
> (I'll write TOPDIR instead of RSD).

Sune seems to just have got things working and since he's using
Automake and compiles from the source base directory he may well be
using the default -I. provided by Automake. Moving into build/ may
result in that subirectory Makefiles won't find the necessary headers.
Just trying to be helpful, that's all.

> in ones Makefile (or, for all the differece it makes).
> > 4) autoreconf
> >     cd ../build
> >     ../rsd/configure
> >     make
> This is again exactly what he has been told. Except
>    1. It's likely that the autoconf won't have added the VPATH =
>    $(TOPDIR)/src to the Makefile that he needs.

Autoconf adds nothing into Makefiles. configure does that with the help
of config.status.

>    2.  There is no absolute guarantee at this point that he has a
>    Makefile in this position now, but it is damn likely.
> > Now the autotols suite has been used as it is meant to.
> It hasn't been "used as it is meant to [be]" in any sense beyond the
> ordinary use.  There was no use there of "autoconf" except to
> build a configure file in the top level directory.

Automake was run by autoreconf to get the suggested new addition in into

> > And about the for i ..... hack suggested. In all honesty, why create a
> > subshell and spawn/exit 80-100 make process?
> Eh? You will have exactly as many processes as you NEED, WHEN you need
> them. Are you under the impression that this is (a) expensive, or (b)
> simultaneous? And I may add (c) unneccessary? You will always have
> that number of makes. Try it and see. The  example you have given is
> of compilation in ONE subdirectory. If you want to compile in 80
> build dirs, you will do make in each of them.
> And may I add, that in each subdir of each build dir you will do a
> make.
> > If cross compilation is
> > utilized for say 5 architectures and the project is big I think doing
> > like above and executing make 5 times instead of 500 times is to
> > prefer.

I have done process accounting and I stand corrected. Thanks.

> Idiot.
> Plonk!
> Peter

Noone in this thread is an idiot.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]