August 2002 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: Isn't 'make depend' optional?

by Bang Jun-Young

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 03:11:00PM +0200, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:05:48PM +0900, Bang Jun-Young wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Sylvain Petreolle wrote: > > > --- Bang Jun-Young <junyoung(a)mogua.com> a ?crit?: > On Mon, Aug 05, > > > 2002 at 10:16:09AM +0200, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > > > > > 'make depend' is required and not optional. > > > > > > > > Why? > > > See configure output and follow its instructions - it says to run > > > 'make depend && make'. > > > > Why do I have to do 'make depend' when I can build Wine without it? > > Only because it's said so there? Sounds unreasonable to me. > Heh? I thought you told us you can't build wine without running 'make > depend'? I _said_ I worked around the problem by applying a quick and dirty patch. Jun-Young -- Bang Jun-Young <junyoung(a)mogua.com>

Aug. 5, 2002

Re: Isn't 'make depend' optional?

by Joerg Mayer

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:05:48PM +0900, Bang Jun-Young wrote: > Why do I have to do 'make depend' when I can build Wine without it? > Only because it's said so there? Sounds unreasonable to me. No, not because it is said there. Definitely not because it is said there. The current build process requires that this is done in some cases. Because nobody wanted to document those cases, the message was put at the end of configure. I had problems compiling wine without make depend from time to time 6 or more years ago, so your problem is in no way new. It may be new for you, but not for wine. And because of this problem, you should do make depend. Or not, but please don't complain in that case. Your agrument seems to go a bit like that: "I've been speeding for years but never got a ticket. Why should I get one now?" ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.

Aug. 5, 2002

Re: Isn't 'make depend' optional?

by Michael Stefaniuc

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:05:48PM +0900, Bang Jun-Young wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Sylvain Petreolle wrote: > > --- Bang Jun-Young <junyoung(a)mogua.com> a ?crit?: > On Mon, Aug 05, > > 2002 at 10:16:09AM +0200, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > > > > 'make depend' is required and not optional. > > > > > > Why? > > See configure output and follow its instructions - it says to run > > 'make depend && make'. > > Why do I have to do 'make depend' when I can build Wine without it? > Only because it's said so there? Sounds unreasonable to me. Heh? I thought you told us you can't build wine without running 'make depend'? bye michael -- Michael Stefaniuc Tel.: +49-711-96437-199 System Administration Fax.: +49-711-96437-111 Red Hat GmbH Email: mstefani(a)redhat.com Hauptstaetterstr. 58 http://www.redhat.de/ D-70178 Stuttgart

Aug. 5, 2002

Re: Isn't 'make depend' optional?

by Bang Jun-Young

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Sylvain Petreolle wrote: > --- Bang Jun-Young <junyoung(a)mogua.com> a ?crit?: > On Mon, Aug 05, > 2002 at 10:16:09AM +0200, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > > > 'make depend' is required and not optional. > > > > Why? > See configure output and follow its instructions - it says to run > 'make depend && make'. Why do I have to do 'make depend' when I can build Wine without it? Only because it's said so there? Sounds unreasonable to me. Jun-Young -- Bang Jun-Young <junyoung(a)mogua.com>

Aug. 5, 2002

Re: Isn't 'make depend' optional?

by Sylvain Petreolle

--- Bang Jun-Young <junyoung(a)mogua.com> a écrit : > On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:16:09AM +0200, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > > 'make depend' is required and not optional. > > Why? See configure output and follow its instructions - it says to run 'make depend && make'. ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

Aug. 5, 2002

Re: Isn't 'make depend' optional?

by Bang Jun-Young

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:16:09AM +0200, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > 'make depend' is required and not optional. Why? I had no problem with earlier snapshots of wine. And in most of software that has GNU style build process, 'make depend' is completely optional. Jun-Young -- Bang Jun-Young <junyoung(a)mogua.com>

Aug. 5, 2002

Re: Isn't 'make depend' optional?

by Joerg Mayer

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 03:46:42PM +0900, Bang Jun-Young wrote: > I got the following error with wine-20020804 when I skipped 'make depend' > before doing 'make': make depend is indeed optional. Except for a few dozens corner cases that I don't know all myself. Because I'm too lazy to find out about all of them the hard way (or by really understanding the complete build system) I usually do the make depend, just like the last lines of configure say. Ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.

Aug. 5, 2002

Re: Isn't 'make depend' optional?

by Michael Stefaniuc

Hello! On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 03:46:42PM +0900, Bang Jun-Young wrote: > I got the following error with wine-20020804 when I skipped 'make depend' > before doing 'make': Than don't do that. 'make depend' is required and not optional. bye michael > gmake[2]: Entering directory `/u0/work/wine-20020804/tools/widl' > gcc -c -I. -I. -I../../include -I../../include -O2 -Wall -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -D__WINE__ -D_REENTRANT -I/usr/X11R6/include -o header.o header.c > header.c:36: y.tab.h: No such file or directory > gmake[2]: *** [header.o] Error 1 > gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/u0/work/wine-20020804/tools/widl' > gmake[1]: *** [widl] Error 2 > gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/u0/work/wine-20020804/tools' > gmake: *** [tools] Error 2 > > This was due to dependency that widl/*.c require y.tab.h in common but > y.tab.h is not generated before compilation is being done. I have worked > around it as follows: > > --- Make.rules.in.orig Sat Aug 3 04:34:21 2002 > +++ Make.rules.in Mon Aug 5 14:57:17 2002 > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ > CLEAN_FILES = *.o *.a *.so *.ln *.$(LIBEXT) \\\#*\\\# *~ *% .\\\#* *.bak *.orig *.rej \ > *.flc *.spec.c *.spec.def *.glue.c *.dbg.c y.tab.c y.tab.h @LEX_OUTPUT_ROOT(a).c core > > -OBJS = $(C_SRCS:.c=.o) $(GEN_C_SRCS:.c=.o) $(GEN_ASM_SRCS:.s=.o) $(ASM_SRCS:.S=.o) $(EXTRA_OBJS) > +OBJS = $(EXTRA_OBJS) $(C_SRCS:.c=.o) $(GEN_C_SRCS:.c=.o) $(GEN_ASM_SRCS:.s=.o) $(ASM_SRCS:.S=.o) > > RCOBJS = $(RC_SRCS:.rc=.res.o) > LINTS = $(C_SRCS:.c=.ln) > > Obviously the patch doesn't look good. Is there any better solution > for this? What about introducing PREEXTRA_OBJS and POSTEXTRA_OBJS? -- Michael Stefaniuc Tel.: +49-711-96437-199 System Administration Fax.: +49-711-96437-111 Red Hat GmbH Email: mstefani(a)redhat.com Hauptstaetterstr. 58 http://www.redhat.de/ D-70178 Stuttgart

Aug. 5, 2002

Small 'quibble' about GetDCEx

by Lionel Ulmer

Hi, While hunting down a function to get the HWND associated to a DC (I found it 'WindowFromDC'), I looked at the GetDCEx code, and found this : dce->DCXflags |= DCX_DCEBUSY; (...) if (!USER_Driver.pGetDC( hwnd, hdc, hrgnClip, flags )) hdc = 0; In that case, shouldn't the DCEBUSY flag be 'unset' or something ? I did not submit a patch because I did not know if unsetting would have been enough or if DCE_ReleaseDC should have been called (and, yes, I know, the pGetDC cannot ever return FALSE in the X11 driver, but well, if the error code exists, we should write it properly :-) ). Lionel -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/

Aug. 5, 2002

Isn't 'make depend' optional?

by Bang Jun-Young

Hi, I got the following error with wine-20020804 when I skipped 'make depend' before doing 'make': gmake[2]: Entering directory `/u0/work/wine-20020804/tools/widl' gcc -c -I. -I. -I../../include -I../../include -O2 -Wall -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -D__WINE__ -D_REENTRANT -I/usr/X11R6/include -o header.o header.c header.c:36: y.tab.h: No such file or directory gmake[2]: *** [header.o] Error 1 gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/u0/work/wine-20020804/tools/widl' gmake[1]: *** [widl] Error 2 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/u0/work/wine-20020804/tools' gmake: *** [tools] Error 2 This was due to dependency that widl/*.c require y.tab.h in common but y.tab.h is not generated before compilation is being done. I have worked around it as follows: --- Make.rules.in.orig Sat Aug 3 04:34:21 2002 +++ Make.rules.in Mon Aug 5 14:57:17 2002 @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ CLEAN_FILES = *.o *.a *.so *.ln *.$(LIBEXT) \\\#*\\\# *~ *% .\\\#* *.bak *.orig *.rej \ *.flc *.spec.c *.spec.def *.glue.c *.dbg.c y.tab.c y.tab.h @LEX_OUTPUT_ROOT(a).c core -OBJS = $(C_SRCS:.c=.o) $(GEN_C_SRCS:.c=.o) $(GEN_ASM_SRCS:.s=.o) $(ASM_SRCS:.S=.o) $(EXTRA_OBJS) +OBJS = $(EXTRA_OBJS) $(C_SRCS:.c=.o) $(GEN_C_SRCS:.c=.o) $(GEN_ASM_SRCS:.s=.o) $(ASM_SRCS:.S=.o) RCOBJS = $(RC_SRCS:.rc=.res.o) LINTS = $(C_SRCS:.c=.ln) Obviously the patch doesn't look good. Is there any better solution for this? What about introducing PREEXTRA_OBJS and POSTEXTRA_OBJS? Jun-Young -- Bang Jun-Young <junyoung(a)mogua.com>

Aug. 5, 2002