Subject: Re: extras

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 15:15:19 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, Dan Espen wrote:

> You do remember that a normal make should not attempt to make the
> modules in the "extras" directories?

Yes, good point.  

Normally, these are not built.  They are, however, all autoconfigured, and
you can do:

	./configure
	make; make install
	cd extras/foo
	make; make install

to install the extra module "foo".  

On the other hand, if you want to build & install everything, you can
treat the "extra" modules on the same footing as the regular modules.  If
you do:
	./configure --enable-extras
	make; make install

then all the "extra" modules are built and installed alongside the regular
ones.  

***** important NOTE for distribution builders: you need to use
'--enable-extras' before creating a tar file for distribution ("make
distcheck") otherwise the distribution won't properly handle the extra
modules.

> (I'm impressed that you are even
> trying to make that stuff.  The old Imake stuff wouldn't touch it.)

Yeah, for some of it I did just give up.  If you are going to use any of
these, you have to check the comments in their Makefile.am files.

The C and C++ based modules do build & install, but not fvwmperl &
fvwmpython. 

I have never tested any of these.

> At least some of the stuff in the extras directories require optional
> things I think, (TCL, C++, perl).

Correct.  The C++ compiler is probed for, and the C++ code is skipped if
the compiler is not there.

--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Austin Donnelly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:25:56 +0000

> distcheck") otherwise the distribution won't properly handle the extra

Don't you need to run "./configure" before making anyway, so then it's
just a case of running "./configure --enable-extras" instead?

Or do I have to re-generate the configure script using
autoconf/automake ?

Austin

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:49:41 -0500 (EST)

> just a case of running "./configure --enable-extras" instead?

Yes, in fact you need to run both "configure" and "make".  Just
configuring is not enough.  The point I was trying to get across is that
just configuring without enabling "extras" is *also* not enough.

So that there is no confusion, here is the recipe to generate a tar file
for distribution:

	make
	make distcheck

If all goes well, at the end of the process, you will see the message:

	========================
	fvwm-x.y.z.tar.gz is ready for distribution
	========================

> Or do I have to re-generate the configure script using

Not the configure script, but you do need automake (and perhaps autoconf,
though I'm not certain) to regenerate the Makefile.in's.  This is the step
where the automatically-generated dependency information is put into the
makefiles.  Fortunately, this is all done magically by makefile rules when
you type "make distcheck"!

---

From: Austin Donnelly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:03:49 +0000

> If all goes well, at the end of the process, you will see the message:

Um, doesn't that embed in the tarfile the system-specific properties
discovered by the ./configure above?  IE, a user building from the
tarfile should re-run ./configure themselves, no?

Austin

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:22:11 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Austin Donnelly wrote:

> discovered by the ./configure above?  

Nope.

> IE, a user building from the

Yes, certainly.  The Makefiles are not distributed, only Makefile.in's.
Installers must ALWAYS run configure before building.

--
Steve Robbins                              <[email-masked]>

Is there something wrong with this?
I don't see how there possibly could be:
The waterbed's on fire, 
but everything else is as it should be.