[erlang-questions] Erlang and autoconf/make
Wed Nov 15 05:22:34 CET 2006
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 23:24, Pupeno wrote:
> > AC_INIT(Modules to write servers, 0.0.0, pupeno@REDACTED,
> > serlvers)
> > AC_COPYRIGHT(Copyright (C) 2006 Jose Pablo Pupeno Fernandez)
> > dnl Require autoconf version >=2.59c. first one with erlang
> > macros
> > AC_PREREQ(2.59c)
> > dnl Require automake version >=1.9.5.
> > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(1.9.5)
> > AC_ERLANG_NEED_ERLC
> > AC_ERLANG_SUBST_INSTALL_LIB_SUBDIR(AC_PACKAGE_TARNAME,
> > AC_PACKAGE_VERSION)
> > AC_CONFIG_FILES([Makefile src/Makefile])
> > AC_OUTPUT
> No need for
The macros have dependencies between them, expressed
by "AC_REQUIRE(..)" macro calls in their implementation.
For instance, if one writes
then the macro AC_ERLANG_NEED_ERLC is called if and only if it
has not already been called.
That way, AC_ERLANG_SUBST_INSTALL_LIB_DIR is required by
And calls to AC_ERLANG_SUBST_ROOT_DIR and AC_ERLANG_SUBST_LIB_DIR
were not necessary anyway in gtknode's configure.ac.
(By the way, Mats, I think that you should remove those calls in
I think that I added those explicit calls in gtknode's
configure.ac, only to demonstrate the use of the available
It must be noted that AC_ERLANG_NEED_ERLC is also required by
AC_ERLANG_SUBST_INSTALL_LIB_SUBDIR(...,...), since the ERLC
variable (i.e., the erlc command) is used to compile tests
written in Erlang, like in this macro.
However, since you explicitly use the ERLC variable in your
Makefile.am, I think that it is better to explicitly keep the
call to AC_ERLANG_NEED_ERLC in your configure.ac.
That way, if one day you need to comment out the call to
AC_ERLANG_SUBST_INSTALL_LIB_SUBDIR(...,...), ERLC will still be
> > > and this is the main Makefile.am
> > > http://software.pupeno.com/Serlvers/src/Makefile.am
> > > And in that last one is where I am worried. I have to list
> > > the sources and the beam files, is that needed ? I have to
> > > also put the .app among the (automatically generated) beam
> > > files, is that needed as well ? I mean, isn't there a
> > > better way ?
> > If your .app file is not generated,
> It can be generated ?
It could. Why not? (^_^)
Ruslan Babayev has thought of a way to substitute the version
numbers in .app files, with the versions of actually installed
However, adding the support for that in Autoconf has been
rejected by Autoconf maintainers. They reject anything that has
to do with version numbers, since it is contrary to Autoconf's
Anyway, we could do such substitutions easily with a short Erlang
program. Any volunteer to develop that?
The configuration+build process would then be:
1) one checks with Autoconf that all required libraries are
installed, and that they have all the required features
(exported functions, etc.), etc.
2) at build time, one can generate the .app files to reflect the
version numbers of the installed libraries.
Pr. Chiba Shigeru Group
Dept. of Mathematical and Computing Sciences
Tokyo Institute of Technology
More information about the erlang-questions