pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 01/12] Fix Windows PMDA build

To: Michael Newton <kimbrr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] Fix Windows PMDA build
From: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:19:53 +1100
Cc: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.SGI.4.58.0612071454030.55709270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Aconex
References: <1163999314.4695.231.camel@edge> <1164321131.4695.368.camel@edge> <Pine.SGI.4.58.0612061551470.53803701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1165381359.1281.113.camel@edge> <1165383346.1281.123.camel@edge> <Pine.SGI.4.58.0612071454030.55709270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 15:58 +1100, Michael Newton wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > OK, I discussed this with Ken, and we agreed that the patch I sent
> > over earlier is what we should go with.  The main issue here is to
> > do with getting new versions of src/pmdas/windows/*.save into the
> > distributed PCP tarballs, and we decided to put it back how it was
> > originally, and send those files to you separately (on the rare
> > occassions that they need to be re-generated).
> 
> are u sure u really mean the same patch u sent? or do u just mean, leave
> it as was in the 1st place?

I did mean my patch.

>  the patch was to delete ".uu" from
> pmda/windows/GNUmakefile right?

Right.

> When i do that, from a clean build i get
> 
> gmake[5]: *** No rule to make target `show-all-ctrs.save', needed by
> `src-pcp'.

Oh.  Does the ptools tree not have any *.save files checked in at all?
I thought Max had checked those in... guess not?  If not, we can just
have a default .save Makefile rule which touches the file.  Lemme know,
I'll send a followup patch if you've not got any .save files in ptools.

> > I did notice one unrelated issue when doing a test build just now,
> this is an increment to the other stomp patch, right? just want to sure as
> i think i'll put this stuff ona separate PV, as its a larger homogenous
> change

Yep, and that sounds fine.

thanks!

-- 
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>