[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh
From: |
Benoit SIGOURE |
Subject: |
Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh |
Date: |
Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:10:49 +0200 |
On Aug 25, 2007, at 2:33 AM, David Bruce wrote:
Hi,
I've inherited an autotools-using project and am trying to learn
more about
autoconf and automake. The project has used the following brief
autogen.sh:
aclocal && autoheader && autoconf && automake --add-missing --copy
Is there any reason I can't just use autoreconf, which I understand is
supposed to fill this role?
(I've read the fine manual but want to be sure I understand
correctly).
Hello David,
yes, using autoreconf --install (or autoreconf --force --verbose --
install) is usually the recommended way unless you have very specific
needs.
Cheers,
--
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- autoreconf vs autogen.sh, David Bruce, 2007/08/24
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh,
Benoit SIGOURE <=
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Roman Rybalko, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Benoit SIGOURE, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Roman Rybalko, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Roman Rybalko, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Noah Misch, 2007/08/27
- Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Andreas Schwab, 2007/08/27
Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Noah Misch, 2007/08/25
Re: autoreconf vs autogen.sh, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/08/25