Re: [Simulavr-devel] SimulAVR Compilation Problem

[Bill]

Galen Seitz wrote:

> Bill <address@hidden> wrote:
>  
>
> <snip>
> In most cases, tarballs can be built without running the autotools.
>  
Right. That is what I was trying to say about Simulavrxx. What tarball 
from simulavrxx do you konw of that doesn't also work this way? Maybe I 
uploaded a bad tarball?

> Many, many build/install instructions consist of:
>
> ./configure
> make
> make install
>
> If everyone had to run the autotools in order to build from a tarball,
>  
right...this is bad, not what I meant to imply. No autotools if you use 
the tarball

> all sorts of builds would be breaking in all sorts of ways (or alternatively,
> the autotools developers might feel a bit more pressure to maintain some
> compatibility between releases :-)).
>  
;-) fishing again....do you have any pointers for me? autotools still 
seem very bizzare/difficult to me.

> A google search for Makefile.in shows it under cvs control for many
> projects.  Some poking around on sourceforge or savannah should confirm
> this.
>  
Lots of projects don't use automake...so makefile.in IS their source 
makefile...so a simple search for Makefile.in is not enough to say that 
it was also generated from automake...for that you probably could look 
for both Makefile.am and Makefile.in...then you've likely found a case 
of both being in CVS.

> galen
>  
Thanks galen. I do appreciate your input. I think what I wrote was 
misunderstood to some degree, hopefully this helps clear it up for you.

> _______________________________________________
> Simulavr-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/simulavr-devel
>
>