Обсуждение: automake
How to handle the [tar-ustar] option in configure.ac? I had to remove it in my setup. Regards, Andreas
On 9/11/05 8:22 pm, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote: > How to handle the [tar-ustar] option in configure.ac? I had to remove it > in my setup. You probably need to upgrade to automake 1.9.6. When I was packaging 1.4 the other night, I suddenly realised that whoever added the slony docs ( :-p ), forgot to add them to makefile.am, so they weren't included in the tarball. Having added them to the makefile, I rebuilt the tarball only to get errors from tar about three of the slony docs having too-long filenames, and find that the tarball itself way 12MB instead of the normal 6!! The tar-ustar option makes tar work in a mode in which 255 character names are supported instead of the default 99. A one off upgrade to automake on the /older/ developer systems seemed far less pain than manually renaming the slony docs forever more. Regards, Dave
Dave Page wrote: > > > On 9/11/05 8:22 pm, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> wrote: > > >>How to handle the [tar-ustar] option in configure.ac? I had to remove it >>in my setup. > > > You probably need to upgrade to automake 1.9.6. > > When I was packaging 1.4 the other night, I suddenly realised that whoever > added the slony docs ( :-p ), forgot to add them to makefile.am, so they > weren't included in the tarball. Having added them to the makefile, I > rebuilt the tarball only to get errors from tar about three of the slony > docs having too-long filenames, and find that the tarball itself way 12MB > instead of the normal 6!! > > The tar-ustar option makes tar work in a mode in which 255 character names > are supported instead of the default 99. A one off upgrade to automake on > the /older/ developer systems seemed far less pain than manually renaming > the slony docs forever more. Did that, automake works now, but Makefile will have a missing separator in line 377. automake-1.9 will claim that *.m4 is created by aclocal-1.4, but aclocal-1.9 will have throw warnings and automake-1.9 will fail then. If 1.9 is needed, it should be called explicitely in bootstrap, no? Current status: can't build on linux. automake/aclocal are 1.9.6 Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 10 November 2005 09:39 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: automake > > Did that, automake works now, but Makefile will have a > missing separator > in line 377. > > automake-1.9 will claim that *.m4 is created by aclocal-1.4, but > aclocal-1.9 will have throw warnings and automake-1.9 will fail then. > If 1.9 is needed, it should be called explicitely in bootstrap, no? Eh? Do you have both installed in different locations or something? This works perfectly for me on Slack 10, FC4 and OSX Panther - Florian has been using it on Tiger as well I believe. Regards, Dave.
Dave Page wrote: > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] >>Sent: 10 November 2005 09:39 >>To: Dave Page >>Cc: pgadmin-hackers >>Subject: Re: automake >> >>Did that, automake works now, but Makefile will have a >>missing separator >>in line 377. >> >>automake-1.9 will claim that *.m4 is created by aclocal-1.4, but >>aclocal-1.9 will have throw warnings and automake-1.9 will fail then. >>If 1.9 is needed, it should be called explicitely in bootstrap, no? > > > Eh? Do you have both installed in different locations or something? No, /usr/bin. All versions are present, but ./bootstrap relies on aclocal/autoconf to point to the right versions. currently, aclocal-1.4 will run (without problem), but automake-1.9 will claim aclocal version and configure isn't created. aclocal-1.9 won't run, many errors. Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 10 November 2005 11:04 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: automake > > Dave Page wrote: > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > >>Sent: 10 November 2005 09:39 > >>To: Dave Page > >>Cc: pgadmin-hackers > >>Subject: Re: automake > >> > >>Did that, automake works now, but Makefile will have a > >>missing separator > >>in line 377. > >> > >>automake-1.9 will claim that *.m4 is created by aclocal-1.4, but > >>aclocal-1.9 will have throw warnings and automake-1.9 will > fail then. > >>If 1.9 is needed, it should be called explicitely in bootstrap, no? > > > > > > Eh? Do you have both installed in different locations or something? > No, /usr/bin. > All versions are present, but ./bootstrap relies on > aclocal/autoconf to > point to the right versions. > > currently, aclocal-1.4 will run (without problem), but > automake-1.9 will > claim aclocal version and configure isn't created. aclocal-1.9 won't > run, many errors. Is this OK now (following an svn update)? Regards, Dave
Dave Page wrote: > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] >>Sent: 10 November 2005 11:04 >>To: Dave Page >>Cc: pgadmin-hackers >>Subject: Re: automake >> >>Dave Page wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] >>>>Sent: 10 November 2005 09:39 >>>>To: Dave Page >>>>Cc: pgadmin-hackers >>>>Subject: Re: automake >>>> >>>>Did that, automake works now, but Makefile will have a >>>>missing separator >>>>in line 377. >>>> >>>>automake-1.9 will claim that *.m4 is created by aclocal-1.4, but >>>>aclocal-1.9 will have throw warnings and automake-1.9 will >> >>fail then. >> >>>>If 1.9 is needed, it should be called explicitely in bootstrap, no? >>> >>> >>>Eh? Do you have both installed in different locations or something? >> >>No, /usr/bin. >>All versions are present, but ./bootstrap relies on >>aclocal/autoconf to >>point to the right versions. >> >>currently, aclocal-1.4 will run (without problem), but >>automake-1.9 will >>claim aclocal version and configure isn't created. aclocal-1.9 won't >>run, many errors. > > > Is this OK now (following an svn update)? I get quite some warnings from aclocal, but after rm -r config* ac*;svn update I'm workable again. Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 10 November 2005 16:47 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] automake > > > Is this OK now (following an svn update)? > > I get quite some warnings from aclocal, but after rm -r > config* ac*;svn > update I'm workable again. Great. See, that was a lot less painful than renaming Slony docs every time we update :-) /D