[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]

Hi !

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[2]: Entering directory `/var/swfmill- 0.2.11.12'
>   > > make[2]: *** No rule to make target `am--refresh'.  Stop.
>   > > make[2]: Leaving directory `/var/swfmill-0.2.11.12'
>   > > make[1]: *** [Makefile] Error 2
>   > > make[1]: 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...

-dan


Thanks again for your reply !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://osflash.org/pipermail/swfmill_osflash.org/attachments/20060725/4acf63fd/attachment.htm