[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libposix - is it done yet?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: libposix - is it done yet? |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Oct 2010 07:20:24 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04) |
* Bruce Korb wrote on Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 07:08:56AM CEST:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >> Just to be completely clear, the BUILT_SOURCES in Makefile.am is now
> >> overloaded. Not only does it mean (to automake anyway) that the
> >> source gets built first, but also that it defines a header that is to
> >> be installed for libposix.
> >
> > You could easily fix that by having a variable posix_headers, adding
> > headers there, and letting gnulib-tool add
> > BUILT_SOURCES += $(posix_headers)
> >
> > to save you duplication.
>
> Once the $(posix_headers) is computed, the rest is, indeed, easy.
> So, if you've got an easy way to compute $(posix_headers), then I'm
> all ears. :)
Oh, are you asking me to write a patch like this for all Posix headers?
Are there any non-generated such headers in gnulib by the way?
Cheers,
Ralf
--- a/modules/stdlib
+++ b/modules/stdlib
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ configure.ac:
gl_STDLIB_H
Makefile.am:
-BUILT_SOURCES += stdlib.h
+posix_headers += stdlib.h
# We need the following in order to create <stdlib.h> when the system
# doesn't have one that works with the given compiler.
- Re: libposix - is it done yet?, (continued)
- Re: libposix - is it done yet?, Bruce Korb, 2010/10/10
- Re: libposix - is it done yet?, Bruno Haible, 2010/10/10
- Re: libposix - is it done yet?, Bruce Korb, 2010/10/10
- Re: libposix - is it done yet?, Bruno Haible, 2010/10/10
- Re: libposix - is it done yet?, Gary V. Vaughan, 2010/10/10
- Re: libposix - is it done yet?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/10/11
- Re: libposix - is it done yet?, Bruce Korb, 2010/10/11
Re: libposix - is it done yet?, Bruce Korb, 2010/10/10