* Re: top level makefile.in [not found] ` <20021001163755.M25369@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> @ 2002-10-01 8:36 ` Andrew Cagney 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-10-01 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Modra; +Cc: Nathanael Nerode, Nick Clifton, binutils, gdb > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:46:52PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Per my reply to Nathaniel, the proposed fix to all this is currently >> waiting on a clear to go, from binutils. > > > OK, go! Maybe I'm dreaming, but once upon a time didn't the > "configure" and "make info" etc. occur in a separate directory? > ie. not generate a whole lot of rubbish in your cvs repo.. It must be a very very long time ago. For longer than I can remember, the release scripts have run in the source directory. This is so that all the generated droppings are left in that same directory. The final pass is something like a ``make distclean'' which should tidy things up. If the distro contains rubish, its a bug in that target. Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: top level makefile.in [not found] ` <20021001114136.F25369@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> [not found] ` <3D991AAC.4010207@redhat.com> @ 2002-10-01 8:51 ` Andrew Cagney 2002-10-01 15:50 ` Nathanael Nerode 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-10-01 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Modra; +Cc: Nick Clifton, binutils, gdb, Nathanael Nerode > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:22:13PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:48:33AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > >> > pepper:/usr/tmp/ppc/bin# make install >> > /bin/sh ./mkinstalldirs /usr/local /usr/local >> > ./mkinstalldirs: ./mkinstalldirs: No such file or directory >> > make: *** [installdirs] Error 127 >> > >> > What's the idea of putting >> > >> > srcdir = . >> > >> > in the top level Makefile.in? Surely you don't expect everybody >> > to run autogen? > >> >> Well, there's some complication here - Nathaniel had a working patch >> in, and Andrew reverted it because it broke GDB's (and binutils'...) >> make -f Makefile.in gas.tar.bz2 hack. > > > Frankly, I'd rather have those broken than "make install". :) > > 2002-09-29 Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> > > Revert below (note that src does not contain Makefile.tpl): > > And _that_ comment isn't true. At least as of a few minutes ago, > /src does contain Makefile.tpl. Hmm, I see Nick has been hacking on > Makefile.in too, which is now a generated file. The're not listed in `:ext:sources.redhat.com:/cvs/src CVSROOT/modules' under src-support. Nathanael, which top-level files now need to be included. Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: top level makefile.in 2002-10-01 8:51 ` Andrew Cagney @ 2002-10-01 15:50 ` Nathanael Nerode 2002-10-01 16:13 ` Andrew Cagney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Nathanael Nerode @ 2002-10-01 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: binutils, gdb On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 11:52:00AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:22:13PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > >>On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:48:33AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > > > >>> pepper:/usr/tmp/ppc/bin# make install > >>> /bin/sh ./mkinstalldirs /usr/local /usr/local > >>> ./mkinstalldirs: ./mkinstalldirs: No such file or directory > >>> make: *** [installdirs] Error 127 > >>> > >>> What's the idea of putting > >>> > >>> srcdir = . > >>> > >>> in the top level Makefile.in? Surely you don't expect everybody > >>> to run autogen? > > > >> > >>Well, there's some complication here - Nathaniel had a working patch > >>in, and Andrew reverted it because it broke GDB's (and binutils'...) > >>make -f Makefile.in gas.tar.bz2 hack. > > > > > >Frankly, I'd rather have those broken than "make install". :) > > > >2002-09-29 Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> > > > > Revert below (note that src does not contain Makefile.tpl): > > > >And _that_ comment isn't true. At least as of a few minutes ago, > >/src does contain Makefile.tpl. Hmm, I see Nick has been hacking on > >Makefile.in too, which is now a generated file. > > The're not listed in `:ext:sources.redhat.com:/cvs/src CVSROOT/modules' > under src-support. > > Nathanael, which top-level files now need to be included. > > Andrew Makefile.tpl, Makefile.def, and src-release should be included. Eek. You need to revert the change to 'configure' corresponding to my reverted change to Makefile.tpl/Makefile.in, until everyone's using src-release and my changes can be put back in full; the partial reversion is the cause of the build breakage. --Nathanael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: top level makefile.in 2002-10-01 15:50 ` Nathanael Nerode @ 2002-10-01 16:13 ` Andrew Cagney 2002-10-01 16:24 ` Nathanael Nerode 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-10-01 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathanael Nerode; +Cc: binutils, gdb > Makefile.tpl, Makefile.def, and src-release should be included. Eek. Ok. Just adding them now... > You need to revert the change to 'configure' corresponding to my reverted > change to Makefile.tpl/Makefile.in, until everyone's using src-release > and my changes can be put back in full; the partial reversion is the > cause of the build breakage. Binutils are ok with this stuff (see other post). Would you be able to commit the src-release file sometime in the next, er, 40 minutes? That way GDB's snap will pick it up and start using it. (Assuming that I get it added to GDB's modules file, also in the next 40 minutes :-) Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: top level makefile.in 2002-10-01 16:13 ` Andrew Cagney @ 2002-10-01 16:24 ` Nathanael Nerode 2002-10-01 19:40 ` Andrew Cagney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Nathanael Nerode @ 2002-10-01 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb, binutils On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 07:13:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >Makefile.tpl, Makefile.def, and src-release should be included. Eek. > > Ok. Just adding them now... > > >You need to revert the change to 'configure' corresponding to my reverted > >change to Makefile.tpl/Makefile.in, until everyone's using src-release > >and my changes can be put back in full; the partial reversion is the > >cause of the build breakage. I finished the reversion, so the build shouldn't be breaking. > > Binutils are ok with this stuff (see other post). > > Would you be able to commit the src-release file sometime in the next, > er, 40 minutes? That way GDB's snap will pick it up and start using it. It's committed. > > (Assuming that I get it added to GDB's modules file, also in the next 40 > minutes :-) Over to you. :-) > Andrew --Nathanael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: top level makefile.in 2002-10-01 16:24 ` Nathanael Nerode @ 2002-10-01 19:40 ` Andrew Cagney 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-10-01 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathanael Nerode; +Cc: gdb, binutils > On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 07:13:22PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> > >> >Makefile.tpl, Makefile.def, and src-release should be included. Eek. > >> >> Ok. Just adding them now... >> > >> >You need to revert the change to 'configure' corresponding to my reverted >> >change to Makefile.tpl/Makefile.in, until everyone's using src-release >> >and my changes can be put back in full; the partial reversion is the >> >cause of the build breakage. > > I finished the reversion, so the build shouldn't be breaking. > > >> >> Binutils are ok with this stuff (see other post). >> >> Would you be able to commit the src-release file sometime in the next, >> er, 40 minutes? That way GDB's snap will pick it up and start using it. > > It's committed. > > >> >> (Assuming that I get it added to GDB's modules file, also in the next 40 >> minutes :-) > > Over to you. :-) Well the snap is using src-release: ==> Making gdb+dejagnu-20021002/ ./configure: -e: command not found Created "Makefile" in /sourceware/snapshot-tmp/gdb-snapshot/current-gdb+dejagnu/ make-snapshot/src Configuring intl... creating cache ../config.cache checking for a BSD compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking how to run the C preprocessor... gcc -E checking whether make sets ${MAKE}... yes checking for gcc... gcc checking whether the C compiler (gcc -g -O2 ) works... yes checking whether the C compiler (gcc -g -O2 ) is a cross-compiler... no checking whether we are using GNU C... yes checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes checking for ranlib... ranlib checking for POSIXized ISC... no checking for ANSI C header files... yes checking for working const... yes checking for inline... inline checking for off_t... yes but then eventually barfs: checking for working makeinfo... found checking for gcc... (cached) gcc checking whether the C compiler (gcc -g -O2 ) works... yes checking whether the C compiler (gcc -g -O2 ) is a cross-compiler... no checking whether we are using GNU C... (cached) yes checking whether gcc accepts -g... (cached) yes checking for a BSD compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking how to run the C preprocessor... (cached) gcc -E checking for stdlib.h... (cached) yes checking for strcmp... yes checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles... no updating cache ../../../config.cache creating ./config.status creating Makefile creating calc.h Configuring utils... loading cache ../config.cache checking for a BSD compatible install... (cached) /usr/bin/install -c checking host system type... sparc-sun-sunos4.1.1 checking target system type... sparc-sun-sunos4.1.1 checking build system type... sparc-sun-sunos4.1.1 creating ./config.status creating Makefile make[3]: *** No rule to make target `configure-target'. Stop. make[2]: *** [do-proto-toplev] Error 2 make[1]: *** [gdb-tar] Error 2 make: *** [gdb+dejagnu.tar] Error 2 I think this needs a tweak: ./configure sun4 $(MAKE) configure-target \ ALL_GCC="" ALL_GCC_C="" ALL_GCC_CXX="" \ CC_FOR_TARGET="$(CC)" CXX_FOR_TARGET="$(CXX)" # Make links, and run "make diststuff" or "make info" when needed. rm -rf proto-toplev ; mkdir proto-toplev set -e ; dirs="$(TOOL) $(DEVO_SUPPORT) $(SUPPORT_FILES)" ; \ It looks like the configure-target rule was lost from Makefile.in/Makefile? Anyway, I think the other Makefile.in changes can be pushed out (so people stop reporting broken `make install') and then I guess this is next. Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-10-02 2:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20021001104833.E25369@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
[not found] ` <20021001012213.GA16275@nevyn.them.org>
[not found] ` <20021001114136.F25369@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
[not found] ` <3D991AAC.4010207@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <20021001163755.M25369@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
2002-10-01 8:36 ` top level makefile.in Andrew Cagney
2002-10-01 8:51 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-01 15:50 ` Nathanael Nerode
2002-10-01 16:13 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-01 16:24 ` Nathanael Nerode
2002-10-01 19:40 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox