[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:
> 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.
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:
gl_STDLIB_H
Makefile.am
+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.
Cheers,
--
Gary V. Vaughan (address@hidden)
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: libposix - is it done yet?, (continued)
- 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