[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Interesting automake bug
Jan Ekholm wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Chris Purnell wrote:
>>On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:22:57PM +0200, Jan Ekholm wrote:
>>>On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Chris Purnell wrote:
>>>>This is the implicit make rule again. Just as before with your header
>>>>files. Make has an implicit rule to make an executable out of a c++
>>>>source file as well as one to make a ".o" object file.
>>>I really don't get it. If I have something like this:
>>>bin_PROGRAMS = panzers
>>>panzers_SOURCES = blast.cpp \
>>> camera_manipulator.cpp \
>>>Why would it determine that "connection" is an application? Each of
>>>files does have a corresponding .hh file, but they're not even
>>>anywhere. Why should their mere existence throw automake out in the
>>>dark goblin woods?
>>The building of "connection" was from before you renamed the header file
>>from "connection" to "connection.hh". The header files are mentioned
>>in the #include lines in the .cpp files.
> No, not anymore. I fixed all those and committed them some hours
> current sources have no mention of headers without .hh anymore. (except
> one place, see below)
>>But that is all fixed now. The remaining problem is the building of
>>"setup". Havining a look at your Makefile.am in CVS I see that you
>>have "setup" with no suffix in panzers_SOURCES.
> Ah, yes, that one should *definitely* not be there. I've been staring at
> that Makefile.am for propably hours today, and I didn't notice it.
> Removing it removed the last thing that went wrong.
> Now it seems to work, at least I can edit a file and do an incremental
> build without problems.
> Chris, thanks a lot for the patient help. I guess I can be a PITA when I
> get frustrated...
> Time for an initial release, maybe someone can benefit from my piece of
Yep! I have been reading with interest as I have had a lot of trouble
with automake to. I was wondering if you have som links about automake
(beside the manual of course)?