On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 11:17 -0500, Bob Rossi wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 05:15:00PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 10:59 -0500, Bob Rossi wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm learning a lot about the autotools. I want to say thanks to the list > > > for teaching me so much! > > > > > > I have a quick question, I run the autotools in this order, > > > > With recent auto*tools, you should use autoreconf instead > > I'm using recent tools. I should use autoreconf instead of autoconf even > if I'm autoconf'ing for the first time? I do this when I check out the > tree for the first time. Yes. autoreconf -fi or autoreconf -fis should do exactly what you want. > > > aclocal -I config > > > autoconf -f > > > autoheader > > > automake -a > > > when I do an out-of-tree configure it works fine, but when I do the make > > > I get, > > > cd ../cgdb && /bin/bash > > > /home/bob/rcs/svn/cgdb/cgdb.testsuite/cgdb/config/missing --run > > > autoheader > > > > > > Am I doing something wrong or is this expected? > > The former, the order is wrong. But unless you're using ancient > > auto*tools, you're better off using autoreconf. > > What's the order supposed to be then? I intentionally did not answer this, because there is no "100% bullet-proof" answer. In most (90%) cases, when using ancient autotools it was: aclocal automake autoconf autoheader > > Besides this, there is a (AFAICT, yet undiscovered) bug somewhere, which > > occasionally triggers "seemingly spurious" autoheader runs. > > I can reproduce this every time. Did you use autoreconf? Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
