Re: automake compile problems

[Andy Armstrong]

Hi Eric,


That could well be a far better approach. I am not sure how to perform cross 
platform builds, especially taking into account the interesting platform 
uniqueness such as codepage etc. I have not used the 'make dist' argument 
before, but it would prerequisite that I chose the appropriate configure and 
make arguments to compile for the platform I am targeting.....thoughts? I am 
not even sure of the official 'name' of the system I am targeting? s390? omvs? 
To be clear, I am targeting USS on zSystems, not Linux on z. Thoughts? Best 
practices?


Andy


________________________________
From: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
Sent: 30 May 2018 18:01
To: Andy Armstrong; address@hidden
Subject: Re: automake compile problems

On 05/30/2018 11:12 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote:

> To give some context to what I am doing, here is the timeline:
>
>
> I did have Automake version 1.10, but my ultimate goal here is to compile the 
> nano text editor, which requires at least automake 1.15 and autoconf 2.69.

That's if you are modifying the source files and actually developing
nano on your mainframe.  But what's wrong with the (often simpler)
approach of using a more typical development box, probably using
GNU/Linux, with modern autotools already installed, and running 'make
dist' on the nano package there, then copying the tarball over?  Once
you've done that, './configure && make' should work without requiring
either automake or autoconf installed on the mainframe.  After all, the
point of the autotools is to build self-contained tarballs that no
longer require the presence of the autotools.

--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org