[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: automake issue in virtuoso: "library has 'libwi_odbc_la' as canonical name (possible typo)"



On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:54:24PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > > > > > libsrc/Wi/Makefile.am:544: library has 'libwi_base_la' as canonical name (possible typo)
> > > > > This is correct, there is a var named libwi_base_la_cflags which seems to
> > > > > be a generic var so it should be renamed to something not looking like
> > > > > foo_cflags automake var.
> > > > 
> > > > That's why I did s/cflags/CFLAGS/.
> > > Ah, I was assuming the vars are case insensitive so the original name is
> > > problematic.
> > 
> > I assumed that Makefile variables are case sensitive and so Makefile.am
> > variables are.  I've never seen lower case spelling in those cases.
> This is correct.
> And lowercase is correct as, again, those are not meant to be automake
> vars.
> I don't know why automake warns about a foo_cflags var, calling it a
> foo_CFLAGS var, but then I don't know if that build log was before or
> after your s/cflags/CFLAGS/ etc. change. As it mentions line 544, which
> originally sets a libwi_base_la_ldlags var, I suspect the latter.
Indeed, the package without that patch only outputs

libsrc/Wi/Makefile.am:292: warning: variable 'libwi_odbc_la_SOURCES' is defined but no program or
libsrc/Wi/Makefile.am:292: library has 'libwi_odbc_la' as canonical name (possible typo)

This is not the first time you are asking about autotools problems caused
by the code you wrote so please be more clear in the future.

Also, it's a warning. I was expecting that such things should not fail the
build prosess and they indeed don't. Not to mention such warnings are also
reported to several other files before that (and in the original email
you've included only a truncated output log).

The actual error is

libsrc/Makefile.am:22: error: required directory libsrc/zlib does not exist

-- 
WBR, wRAR

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: