[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh
From: |
Roman Rybalko |
Subject: |
Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:44:36 +0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728) |
when I have to include some m4s in m4 dir how I can specify -I m4 option
to aclocal through autoreconf ?
>> I've inherited an autotools-using project and am trying to learn more
>> about
>> autoconf and automake. The project has used the following brief
>> autogen.sh:
>>
>> aclocal && autoheader && autoconf && automake --add-missing --copy
>>
>> Is there any reason I can't just use autoreconf, which I understand is
>> supposed to fill this role?
> yes, using autoreconf --install (or autoreconf --force --verbose
> --install) is usually the recommended way unless you have very
> specific needs.
- autoreconf vs autogen.sh, David Bruce, 2007/08/24
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Benoit SIGOURE, 2007/08/25
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh,
Roman Rybalko <=
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Benoit SIGOURE, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Roman Rybalko, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Roman Rybalko, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Noah Misch, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Andreas Schwab, 2007/08/27
Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Noah Misch, 2007/08/25
Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/08/25