[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?


--- a/modules/stdlib
+++ b/modules/stdlib
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ configure.ac:
-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.

reply via email to

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