[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Makefile.in and Makefile not generated when using a static library |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:26:51 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-10-28) |
Hello William,
* William Pursell wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 04:34:48AM CEST:
> Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > Strictly speaking, AC_PROG_INSTALL is redundant here, being already
> > AC_REQUIRE'd by AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE (this should hold from Automake 1.4
> > at least, I think).
>
> Yes, I thought the AC_PROG_INSTALL was unnecessary, but a quick
> perusal of the docs didn't show that immediately, so I left
> it in.
Yeah, you're right in that the docs don't really state that.
OTOH, unless you are using $(INSTALL) yourself in a Makefile.am,
you shouldn't have to think about having to define it either
(as a rough guide to what you need to do manually).
> >> LT_INIT
> > Also, I don't think this is required: he's just trying to build a
> > static library, so libtool is an overkill. AC_PROG_RANLIB should be
> > enough. (Note: I have pratically no real experience in using libtool
> > and in building static libraries with automake, so correct me if I'm
> > wrong!).
>
> Is there any reason to avoid LT_INIT and use AC_PROG_RANLIB
> instead? I thought that AC_PROG_RANLIB was considered
> deprecated, so that LT_INIT would be preferred here.
AC_PROG_RANLIB is deprecated if you anyway also use LT_INIT. If you
don't need the latter, you can avoid lots of configure overhead by not
using it.
Cheers,
Ralf