Problem with configure

[Michael McConnell]

TAKE ME OFF THIS FUCKING MAILING LIST!

Michael Mueller wrote:

> W. Tasin wrote:
>
> > Hmmm... and now to the problem, what do you want to do with a define in
> > the gcc-call??
> >
> > Where is the difference between having it in a header file (which is
> > created by autoheader/autoconf) and with a -D switch and for what is
> > this define good for (is it only for developing purpose?)?
> >
> > The problem is the conflict in the shell and make substitution.
> >
> > Use for the KDevelop options -DSOMEPATH='\"/foo/bar\"', so you will have
> > the desired result.
> >
> > But I don´t agree with this version, if you want to distribute this
> > DEFINE.
> > The compiler-switch inserted in KDevelop will not be exported to the
> > distribution, so
> > calling make from the console wouldn´t set the define.
> >
> > So later you would have to patch either acconfig.h and/or configure.in,
> > if you wanted to give the DEFINE also to the user of your product.
>
> In fact, the define comes from an environment variable which has to be set at compile
> time and is used to construct pathnames for directories (executables, temporary files and
> configuration files). So actually, the option would have to be
> -DSOMEPATH="${PATHVARIABLE}", but I first tried the simpler version without the
> environment variable and came to that problem. The environment variable is set
> differently for different products and for debug and release versions. A similar
> construct is used to bring a version string into the compiled software.
> Maybe I should note that we are currently investigating whether to use KDevelop for
> porting a large package of legacy software to Linux. I never had to deal with configure
> before using KDevelop, so I don't know much about it. May be it doesn't make sense for us
> to use configure, since it makes no sense to distribute our software because it can only
> be used together with very expensive hardware which only we build and sell. But KDevelop
> by default uses configure and so I first tried to do it this way. May be we will use
> KDevelop with only ordinary makefiles.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael