Peter, David,
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Peter W. Draper wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Giaretta, DL (David) wrote:
>
> > Just following these instructions and I get
> >
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > CLDIR=`cd catlib-install;pwd` ; \
> > cd moggy && INSTALL .......
> >
> > Then
> >
> > /bin/sh: line 1: ./configure: No such file or directory
> >
> >
> > Anyone else find this?
>
> Yes, I see this too. Looks like a missing file.
./configure isn't checked in anywhere -- it's a generated file.
Did you run the `sh bootstrap', and did it run without errors? I'm using
current versions of the autotools: autoconf 2.57, automake 1.7.5, libtool
1.5 (though libtool isn't used by anything at present). Stock RH7.3
appears to have autoconf 2.13, automake 1.4-p5, libtool 1.4.2 and ...
I've just checked and those versions bomb:
ptolemy:autoastrom> sh bootstrap
Bootstrapping moggy...
aclocal...
automake --add-missing...
configure.ac: 18: `automake requires `AM_CONFIG_HEADER', not `AC_CONFIG_HEADER'
Makefile.am:17: variable `LIBOBJS' not defined
Bootstrapping astrom...
autoconf...
Usage: autoconf [-h] [--help] [-m dir] [--macrodir=dir]
[-l dir] [--localdir=dir] [--version] [template-file]
I should have noted that I was using recent autotools, sorry.
I'd forgotten I was using them by default. Those RH tools _are_ a bit
long in the tooth, though.
This is, of course, the reason why opinions differ about whether or not to
put generated ./configure and Makefile.in under version control. On one
hand, they're not sources, and have no business being in the repository;
plus everyone working with a source set should have up-to-date tools.
On the other hand, this means that the repository sources might have a
hidden dependency on a particular autotools version, so that if you go
this route, you should potentially have the autotools in your repository,
too.
This is summarised in the current automake manual:
<http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#CVS>. I'm rather
persuaded by the include-generated-files argument, because
the disadvantages of this route sound irritating but not fatal, but
the problems with the exclude-generated-files route sound potentially
very nasty.
I have no particular committment to either position, but would
probably go for the include-them route. Any objections to me changing
this and checking them in?
> BTW Norman. I also get another error when compiling imageio in catlib.
> It seems that you're loosing the macro "-Dg77Fortran" from CFLAGS and this
> messes up compilation of f77_wrap1.c and f77_wrap2.c. I'd suggest
> unsetting CFLAGS before compiling catlib (since this is all worked out by
> configure anyway).
Hmm, it works for me with a fresh checkout of autoastrom. Ahh...., no
it doesn't, I can see those failing in the middle of the build (they
appear not to matter to autoastrom). This has made me realise that
the `make -e' in the mk script is probably going to cause more
problems, so I'm presently seeing if I configure away the necessity
for that. It looks OK, and I'm working on that now.
I'll aim for a mk script which is essentially just `./configure;make
build'. That shouldn't cause problems, should it (given that I get
the configuring right, of course)?
Norman
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Gray http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/
Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK [log in to unmask]
|