GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 726570
should use Makefile.introspection
Last modified: 2014-04-22 12:50:18 UTC
Hi. No patch sorry, it's a bit too much goi/autotools voodoo for me... The hand-rolled rules in the Makefile are missing some things that the m4 macros have -- particularly support for a non-standard libtool path. See also: https://fedorahosted.org/libosinfo/ticket/11 On OpenBSD this allows using the OS provided libtool(1) (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=726518) and fix the build.
Created attachment 273904 [details] [review] do not hardcode path to libtool Hi. This patch does the trick for me...
Hi. Any opinion on this? Thanks.
Review of attachment 273904 [details] [review]: Sorry about the delay. ::: src/goa/Makefile.am @@ +135,3 @@ --pkg=gio-2.0 \ --pkg-export=goa-1.0 \ + --libtool=${LIBTOOL} \ I think that it should be enclosed in quotes because on GNU/Linux it expands to /bin/sh ../../libtool. Without the quotes, when g-ir-scanner tries to link, the ../../libtool part gets dropped and only /bin/sh is used. That leads to a build failure because /bin/sh does not like --mode=link, etc. being passed to it. And maybe we should use $(...) instead of ${...}?
Why not use the standard m4 rules and Makefile.introspection here like everyone else?
> ::: src/goa/Makefile.am > @@ +135,3 @@ > --pkg=gio-2.0 \ > --pkg-export=goa-1.0 \ > + --libtool=${LIBTOOL} \ > > I think that it should be enclosed in quotes because on GNU/Linux it expands to > /bin/sh ../../libtool. Without the quotes, when g-ir-scanner tries to link, the > ../../libtool part gets dropped and only /bin/sh is used. That leads to a build > failure because /bin/sh does not like --mode=link, etc. being passed to it. > > And maybe we should use $(...) instead of ${...}? Sure thing, new patch attached.
Created attachment 274663 [details] [review] do not hardcode path to libtool v2
Created attachment 274667 [details] [review] do not hardcode path to libtool v3 Bah, wrong project patch ;-)
(In reply to comment #4) > Why not use the standard m4 rules and Makefile.introspection here like everyone > else? Yes, let's just do that. I will write a patch based on your libosinfo one.
Review of attachment 274667 [details] [review]: I am going to try and move to using Makefile.introspection. In the meantime, lets commit this - it is just a one-liner.
Created attachment 274886 [details] [review] build: Clean up uses of INCLUDES and _CPPFLAGS
Created attachment 274887 [details] [review] build: Use Makefile.introspection
Review of attachment 274886 [details] [review]: Committed.
Review of attachment 274887 [details] [review]: Committed.