[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: libposix - is it done yet?

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: libposix - is it done yet?
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:34:57 +0700

Hallo Ralf,

On 11 Oct 2010, at 12:20, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> --- a/modules/stdlib
> +++ b/modules/stdlib
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ configure.ac:
> 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.

Agreed, with some caveats.

Since this affects many gnulib modules, libposix or not:

--- a/modules/stdlib
+++ b/modules/stdlib
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ configure.ac:

+noinst_HEADERS += stdlib.h
 BUILT_SOURCES += stdlib.h
 # We need the following in order to create <stdlib.h> when the system

With magic to add EXTRA_HEADERS and/or transform to include_HEADERS at
Makefile.am generation time.

This also makes the 'Makefile.am:' section of the module files more
expressive, since you can now express whether a file is a built source
or not, independently of whether it's a header (that libposix or others
might wish to install). Surely it's just a fluke that BUILT_SOURCES is
currently the same set as the headers that libposix wants to install -
at least for the modules it includes, I haven't looked at the others.

Gary V. Vaughan (address@hidden)

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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