This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Generating Makefile.in (opcodes)
- To: Phil Blundell <pb at nexus dot co dot uk>
- Subject: Re: Generating Makefile.in (opcodes)
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:33:58 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: <Peter dot Targett at arccores dot com>, <binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Phil Blundell wrote:
> >I've modified opcodes/Makefile.am and re-generated opcodes/Makefile.in for a
> >w.i.p port but every time I do a cvs update and a merge takes place to a new
> >checked-in version of Makefile.in I have conflicts. Looking at the problem it
> >seems that HFILES =..., CFILES =... are transformed into a one line list in my
> >Makefile.in where as the checked-in version has them as Makefile.am. I've
> >followed the exact style/guidelines in Makefile.am for adding files to HFILES
> This is pretty much an occupational hazard. Different versions of the
> autotools do this kind of thing slightly differently. Unless you and the
> person checking in have precisely the same automake and autoconf, conflicts
> are almost inevitable.
The recommended versions (actually snapshots) that are supposed
to be used for check-ins are pointed to by README-maintainer-mode.
If those versions get out of date to the point of unusability,
they should be updated. Anyone knowledgeable?