Amanda-Users

Re: Problems building 2.5 B2

2006-02-25 18:03:25
Subject: Re: Problems building 2.5 B2
From: stan <stanb AT panix DOT com>
To: Ian Turner <ian AT zmanda DOT com>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:59:49 -0500
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 10:59:06PM -0500, Ian Turner wrote:
> On Thursday 23 February 2006 22:38, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> > The actual complaint is often a big help to those answering.
> >
> > > $(man_MANS): %: $(MANPAGEDIR)/%.proc.xml xslt/man.xsl
> > >         $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $<
> > >
> > > Now, it's been a while since I wrote Makefiles, but I must admit that I
> > > don't undrstand rh %: myself.
> 
> I have to confess that this is my doing. That line is a "static pattern", 
> which is different from an implicit rule in that it applies only to the given 
> targets (in this case, man_MANS). However, it would seem that your make does 
> not support static patterns. 
> 
> Try the attached patch, and let me know what happens. Implicit rules hurt 
> make's performance (especially global ones like this), but there are not many 
> targets in that directory anyway, so it is probably not a problem.
> 
> --Ian
> -- 
> Wiki for Amanda documentation: http://wiki.zmanda.com/

> Index: man/Makefile.am
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/amanda/amanda/man/Makefile.am,v
> retrieving revision 1.31
> diff -r1.31 Makefile.am
> 94c94
> < $(man_MANS): %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl
> ---
> > %: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl

Sorry, it's been too long since I did this.

Here is what my man/Makefile.am looks like:


Line 93 ---> $(man_MANS): %: $(MANPAGEDIR)/%.proc.xml xslt/man.xsl
Line 94 --->    $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $<

So, I read this as repalce the line:

        $(XSLTPROC) --path xslt/ --output $@ man.xsl $<

with

%: xml-source/%.proc.xml $(srcdir)/xslt/man.xsl

am I reading this corectly?



-- 
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong 
Terror 
- New York Times 9/3/1967