On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Norman Gray 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?
Yes, I guessed...
> sh bootstrap
Bootstrapping moggy...
aclocal...
automake --add-missing...
configure.ac:18: `automake requires `AM_CONFIG_HEADER', not `AC_CONFIG_HEADER'
Bootstrapping astrom...
autoconf...
unless that problem at :18 is fatal. Seems it must be and the moggy
configure file isn't generated.
> 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).
I'm using RH9:
autoconf-2.57-3
automake-1.6.3-5
libtool-1.4.3-5
cannot reasonably expect these to be more up to date than that.
> 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?
>
I'd tend to agree, relying on automake and autoconf being up to date (or
even installed on systems like Solaris) is too problematic. Check in the
configure and Makefile.in files.
> > 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)?
We'll see...
Peter.
|