[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Interesting automake bug
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Chris Purnell wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:22:57PM +0200, Jan Ekholm wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Chris Purnell wrote:
>>
>> >This is the implicit make rule again. Just as before with your header
>> >files. Make has an implicit rule to make an executable out of a c++
>> >source file as well as one to make a ".o" object file.
>>
>> I really don't get it. If I have something like this:
>>
>> ## programs
>> bin_PROGRAMS = panzers
>>
>> panzers_SOURCES = blast.cpp \
>> camera_manipulator.cpp \
>> connection.cpp
>> ....
>>
>> Why would it determine that "connection" is an application? Each of those
>> files does have a corresponding .hh file, but they're not even mentioned
>> anywhere. Why should their mere existence throw automake out in the
>> dark goblin woods?
>
>The building of "connection" was from before you renamed the header file
>from "connection" to "connection.hh". The header files are mentioned
>in the #include lines in the .cpp files.
No, not anymore. I fixed all those and committed them some hours ago. The
current sources have no mention of headers without .hh anymore. (except
one place, see below)
>But that is all fixed now. The remaining problem is the building of
>"setup". Havining a look at your Makefile.am in CVS I see that you
>have "setup" with no suffix in panzers_SOURCES.
Ah, yes, that one should *definitely* not be there. I've been staring at
that Makefile.am for propably hours today, and I didn't notice it.
Removing it removed the last thing that went wrong.
Now it seems to work, at least I can edit a file and do an incremental
build without problems.
Chris, thanks a lot for the patient help. I guess I can be a PITA when I
get frustrated...
Time for an initial release, maybe someone can benefit from my piece of
crap.
--
Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs.
-- Susan Sto Helit, in Hogfather (Terry Pratchett)