[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ? |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:21:29 +0900 |
Stefan Monnier writes:
> Actually, I'd be happy to have a recipe to reproduce the problem.
bzr brunch emacs
cd emacs
./configure
mkdir +build
cd +build
./configure --without-x11 # or other spectacular configuration difference
make bootstrap
src/emacs # of course, you need an X11 platform
# to see the difference
should do the trick.
> This way we can fix it in the Makefile,
You can't fix it (nothing's broken), you can only prevent it. Eg,
make everything depend on sane-builddir
sane-builddir:
if -e src/emacs.c; then
echo "Dr. Bader thinks you're insane."
echo "For a second opinion, we recommend"
echo "mkdir +build"
echo "cd +build"
echo "../configure"
echo "make bootstrap"
echo "src/emacs -f doctor"
exit -1
fi
You might want to use a more polite, informative error message, of course.
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, (continued)
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, immanuel litzroth, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Andreas Schwab, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/07/29
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Andreas Röhler, 2010/07/28
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Yavor Doganov, 2010/07/28
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Dan Nicolaescu, 2010/07/28