shige@foretune.co.jp (Shigeya Suzuki) (10/19/90)
Some questions relates Makefile. 1. Every time I re-build the perl, I had problem with the line: config.sh: ../config.sh rm -f config.sh ln ../config.sh . in the "toplevel" Makefile. Is there any reason these lines must be here? With (looks like) pure 4BSD make, there is no problem. But I met problem on SunOS4.1's make and GNUmake. 2. I'm using perl since 3.0 PL=1. Applied all patches. I'm not sure when, but from sometime, I had problem with patch on Makefiles. RCS ids are different every time. I've been applying every rejected patch manually. Are there something wrong in my "patched" source codes? -- Shigeya Suzuki / Foretune Co., Ltd. shige%foretune.co.jp@uunet.uu.net ..!uunet!kddlabs!lkbreth!shige
lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) (10/20/90)
In article <SHIGE.90Oct19205915@hawkwind.foretune.co.jp> shige@foretune.co.jp (Shigeya Suzuki) writes:
: Some questions relates Makefile.
:
: 1. Every time I re-build the perl, I had problem with the line:
:
: config.sh: ../config.sh
: rm -f config.sh
: ln ../config.sh .
:
: in the "toplevel" Makefile. Is there any reason these lines must be
: here?
They're not supposed to be there. They're supposed to be in x2p/Makefile.
At some point you forgot to give a -p switch to patch, so it applied
the patch to the wrong Makefile.
: 2. I'm using perl since 3.0 PL=1. Applied all patches. I'm not sure
: when, but from sometime, I had problem with patch on Makefiles. RCS
: ids are different every time. I've been applying every rejected patch
: manually.
:
: Are there something wrong in my "patched" source codes?
Yes, you shouldn't get so many rejects. I'd get some fresh kits at
the current patchlevel and start over.
Larry