[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: use of mkoctfile with autoconf/automake
From: |
David Bateman |
Subject: |
Re: use of mkoctfile with autoconf/automake |
Date: |
Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:05:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060921) |
Eric Chassande-Mottin wrote:
> hi,
>
> I'd like to compile a set of DLD codes with automake/autoconf.
> i am trying to understand what octave-forge does. from
> configure.base, i see that the idea is to "recompose" the compilation
> instructions of mkoctfile. am i right?
> the compiler, options and libs are retrieved from a call "mkoctfile
> -p" for instance :
>
> 163 CC=`$MKOCTFILE -p CC`
> [...]
> 169 AC_SUBST(CC)
> [...]
>
> if this is true, why can't i find a statement retrieving the includes
> ? i've probably missed something here...
>
> second question: I am not able to find the Makefile.ams (there are only
> Makefile.in). why is that?
>
> if , then I expect the following Makefile.am to be OK :
>
> bin_PROGRAMS= foo.oct
>
> foo_oct_SOURCES= foo.cc
>
> am i right?
>
> thanks for any help,
> eric.
Octave-forge is probably a bad example now to look at. When octave-forge
was monolithic, the configure.base file together with others in each of
the directories did a lot more that it currently does. We might even be
able to eliminate the one in the top level directory altogether now,
since its basically only used for a couple of things like the
mkdoc/mktexi scripts, and a couple of bits of package manager code. The
stuff that extracts the compile flags from mkoctfile in the toplevel
configure.base of octave-forge isn't used at the moment, but when
stripping back the code for the package manager from the monolithic
octave-forge, we didn't want to take out too much unintentionally.
The configuration scripts in the packages themselves are perhaps a bit
more interesting as they look for features, like the presence of pcre in
main/strings..
D.