[swfmill] prerelease 0.2.11.12 (fixes #5), was: Re: prerelease 0.2.11.11 'it's getting a bit ridiculous with the prereleases'
quentin.t at gmail.com
Tue Jul 25 05:27:51 EDT 2006
On 7/25/06, daniel fischer <dan at f3c.com> wrote:
> Quentin <quentin.t at gmail.com> (on Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:53:42 +0200):
> > make: Entering directory `/var/swfmill- 0.2.11.12'
> > > make: *** No rule to make target `am--refresh'. Stop.
> > > make: Leaving directory `/var/swfmill-0.2.11.12'
> > > make: *** [Makefile] Error 2
> > > make: Leaving directory `/var/swfmill-0.2.11.12/src'
> > > make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> did you have those problems before? did you ./configure?
No, I didn't have these problems before... And, yes, I did ./configure !
> I've had some timestamp problems with the archive so I used
> > tar -m -xzf swfmill-0.2.11.12.tar.gz
> > instead of just
> >> tar -m -xzf swfmill-0.2.11.12.tar.gz
> whats the difference?
Oops, my bad !
In fact, the difference was the -m option...
-m is probably a bad idea, the build procedure might want to run the
> (maintainer) autoconf stuff. what are your timestamp problems? (probably to
> do with clock skew between our machines-- was it like "... has timestamp in
> the future"?) -- if so, you're just too quick to test prereleases :P
That's what was the problem with timestamps... An error said that the
timestamps for some files were in the future...
if you have autotools (automake/autoconf) installed, you might be able to
> fix that by running ./autogen.sh. the better option would be to
> fix/workaround the timestamp problems themselves, though.
Ouch ! This seems a little bit too complex for me, but as you might have
read, the problem disappeared in a mysterious way...
Thanks again for your reply !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swfmill