[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autoconf and OS/2
From: |
Andreas Buening |
Subject: |
Re: autoconf and OS/2 |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:29:25 +0200 |
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> | $diff /temp/autoconf-2.50/acgeneral.m4 acgeneral.m4
> | 4386c4386,4387
> | < AC_MSG_ERROR([cannot link $ac_dest to $srcdir/$ac_source])
> | ---
> | > (cp -p $srcdir/$ac_source $ac_dest &&
> | > AC_MSG_WARN([cannot link $ac_dest to $srcdir/$ac_source, using cp
> -p instead]))
>
> Hm, this, I really don't know :(
>
> Some context for the other people: when using AC_CONFIG_LINKS,
> config.status is equipped with code to build the links:
>
> # Make a symlink if possible; otherwise try a hard link.
> ln -s $ac_rel_source $ac_dest 2>/dev/null ||
> ln $srcdir/$ac_source $ac_dest ||
> AC_MSG_ERROR([cannot link $ac_dest to $srcdir/$ac_source])
>
> Now, the question is why we never used `cp -p' here. Well, I guess
> one reason is that Makefiles don't have rules to update this
> dependency? So if we actually have a copy, then the updating would
> work?
I don't think so. But an updated file requires a programmer who updated
that file. ;-)
For the "normal" user it makes no difference whether it is a copy or a
link,
and the programmer should have (hopefully) read the warning about "cp
-p".
[snip]
bye,
Andreas
- autoconf and OS/2, Andreas Büning, 2001/06/15
- Re: autoconf and OS/2, Tim Van Holder, 2001/06/15
- Re: autoconf and OS/2, Andreas Buening, 2001/06/15
- Re: autoconf and OS/2, Tim Van Holder, 2001/06/15
- Re: autoconf and OS/2, Akim Demaille, 2001/06/18
- Re: autoconf and OS/2, Andreas Buening, 2001/06/18
- Re: autoconf and OS/2, Tim Van Holder, 2001/06/19
- Re: autoconf and OS/2, Andreas Buening, 2001/06/21
- Re: autoconf and OS/2, Tim Van Holder, 2001/06/22
Re: autoconf and OS/2, Akim Demaille, 2001/06/18