[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug in libtoolize
From: |
Jeff Squyres |
Subject: |
Re: Bug in libtoolize |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:13:10 -0500 |
I see that there was a patch committed on this, but I think it's not
quite right, specifically in the Makefile.am area.
In the top-level Makefile.am, the following statement was added:
cd libltdl && $(MAKE) local-install-files
However, there's no such target in libltdl/Makefile.am (nor
libltdl/Makefile). Was install-local-data meant, instead?
On Feb 21, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
I question that we can rely on tar being installed, although I have
not
come across a system where it isn't.
Maybe I should add a --no-tar option to fallback to 'cp -p'
to cover that eventuality?
I take it back. GCS allows us to rely on a tar command being
available.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} address@hidden
{+} http://www.lam-mpi.org/
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, (continued)
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Brian Barrett, 2005/02/16
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Peter O'Gorman, 2005/02/16
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Peter O'Gorman, 2005/02/16
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Albert Chin, 2005/02/17
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Jeff Squyres, 2005/02/18
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Peter O'Gorman, 2005/02/21
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Gary V. Vaughan, 2005/02/21
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Peter O'Gorman, 2005/02/21
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Gary V. Vaughan, 2005/02/21
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Gary V. Vaughan, 2005/02/21
- Re: Bug in libtoolize,
Jeff Squyres <=
- Re: Bug in libtoolize, Gary V. Vaughan, 2005/02/24