Subject: fvwm-2.3.0 file missing

From: "Robert H. Ford II" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 14:31:08 -0500

I downloaded fvwm-2.3.0 ran configure and typed make.  The make had failed
telling me that file gnome.c was missing.  Sure enough that file is missing from
the tar file.  I downloaded the file from
ftp://ftp.fvwm.org/pub/fvwm/devel/sources/fvwm and everything compiled
correctly.

I had the same problem with one of the snapshots.
-- 
    _/_/_/     _/  _/   _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/_/_/_/ Robert H. Ford II
   _/   _/    _/  _/   _/           _/    _/    Lucent Technologies
  _/_/_/     _/_/_/   _/_/_/       _/    _/     Bell Labs Innovations
 _/   _/    _/  _/   _/           _/    _/      Naperville IL, 60566-7045
_/    _/   _/  _/   _/         _/_/_/_/_/_/     mailto:[email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
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: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 08 Apr 1999 14:50:02 -0500

It seems that make dist doesn't know it has to add that file.  How is this
supposed to work?  Perl uses a MANIFEST file, but it seems that automake
has some sort of autodetection (and it's not working).

 - J<

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 16:01:32 -0400

> has some sort of autodetection (and it's not working).

Are you building with gnome?  This is in the Makefile.am:

if GNOME
GNOME = gnome.c
else
GNOME =
endif

fvwm2_SOURCES = add_window.c			\
	...      				\
	$(GNOME)				\

Perhaps it would be better to have it compile gnome.c as an
empty file.  At least makedist would work.

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
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: "Robert H. Ford II" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 15:12:48 -0500

Yes I compiled with gnome.

The problem seems to be that gnome.c is not in the tar files.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 08 Apr 1999 16:32:35 -0400

%% Dan Espen <[email-masked]> writes:

  de> Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]> writes:

  >> It seems that make dist doesn't know it has to add that file.  How
  >> is this supposed to work?  Perl uses a MANIFEST file, but it seems
  >> that automake has some sort of autodetection (and it's not
  >> working).

  de> Are you building with gnome?  This is in the Makefile.am:

  de> if GNOME
  de> GNOME = gnome.c
  de> else
  de> GNOME =
  de> endif

  de> fvwm2_SOURCES = add_window.c			\
  de> 	...      				\
  de> 	$(GNOME)				\

This is wrong.  If you do it this way then, unless you build the _dist_
with GNOME support so that GNOME is defined, the sources won't include
the gnome.c file and thus the dist tar file won't include it either.

Just as we're seeing.

  de> Perhaps it would be better to have it compile gnome.c as an
  de> empty file.  At least makedist would work.

That's one way to go.  There's another way, too; you can probably add
gnome.c to the EXTRA_DIST variable and take care of getting it compiled
without adding it to the fvwm2_SOURCES variable so it's not dup'd.
Putting "gnome.o" in one of the extra objects variables oughta do it.

On the other hand, if you build the dist without GNOME support you don't
get any dependency info for gnome.c either.  What kind of a problem is
this (I thought we'd already decided on a solution, but now I don't
remember it)?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
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: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 08 Apr 1999 15:38:14 -0500

>>>>> "DE" == Dan Espen <[email-masked]> writes:

DE> Are you building with gnome?  This is in the Makefile.am:

Well, I'm not when I do the snapshots and whoever did the dist probably
didn't either.  But building with Gnome and running 'make dist' are two
separate things; 'make dist' should always contain the whole thing
regardless of how things were configured.

 - J<

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 02:29:05 +0200

> has some sort of autodetection (and it's not working).

I think we have to configure with --enable-gnome as we has to
with --enable-extras in the past. I never though of this.
Could someone put this step in the DEVELOPERS file again?
I just follow it step by step when I built tarballs.

Bye

Dominik ^_^

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
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: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:54:17 -0400 (EDT)

> I just follow it step by step when I built tarballs.

Since gnome.c is suitably #ifdef'd, it can be compiled without trouble on
non-GNOME systems.  So it is probably easier just to put it into
fvwm2_SOURCES unconditionally.

As Paul observed, this will generate bogus dependency info (no
dependencies except config.h) for gnome.o if the dist-maker doesn't have
GNOME. It is not clear to me that this is much of a problem, though: any
non-developer is going to download the package, configure && make && make
install.  The dependency info does not come into play unless one touches a
file and then does "make" without "make clean" (i.e., until one starts
doing development work).

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 13:54:34 +0200

> fvwm2_SOURCES unconditionally.

I don't think GNOME has external dependencies. It compiles
well when I explicitly enable GNOME support although I don't
have GNOME on my machine. Hope that will never be a
prerequisite for the developers.

Bye

Dominik ^_^

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:00:55 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Dominik Vogt wrote:

> I don't think GNOME has external dependencies.

To the contrary, gnome.c says:

	#include "config.h"

	#ifdef GNOME
	...
	#include "fvwm.h"
	#include "screen.h"
	#include "misc.h"

If GNOME is not defined, the only dependecy in the makefile is config.h. 

But as I said before, I don't think this is a huge deal.  If thi really
bothers someone, you can alway put the other include before the #ifdef
GNOME line.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 10 Apr 1999 21:19:14 -0400

%% Steve Robbins <[email-masked]> writes:

  >> I don't think GNOME has external dependencies.

  sr> To the contrary, gnome.c says:

I think what Dominik meant was, gnome.c doesn't require you to have
GNOME (or even GTK?) installed in order to compile it; it doesn't
include any GNOME headers or anything.

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 00:58:02 -0400 (EDT)

> include any GNOME headers or anything.

Oh.  Hey, you're right!  

So it looks like gnome.c mostly messes with X server atoms.  Is there a
heavy memory penalty for compiling it?  Is there any reason not to default
GNOME to be "on" ?

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 11 Apr 1999 15:02:33 -0400

sr> So it looks like gnome.c mostly messes with X server atoms.  Is
  sr> there a heavy memory penalty for compiling it?  Is there any
  sr> reason not to default GNOME to be "on" ?

This was discussed before and most people thought there was no reason to
not leave it on all the time.  I personally don't care.

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 15:43:00 -0400 (EDT)

> not leave it on all the time.  I personally don't care.

I don't care much either.  However, I was not suggesting it be on all the
time.  Rather, I was suggesting: leave it switchable as it is now, but
set the default to be "on".