Re: building moz m117

hi!

right, there were several issues in the past with empty lines inside 
rule/target definition. IIRC, sometimes related to lineend conventions. 
also new (not yet in the MWS) versions seem to be able to handle this 
correct.

this error exactly looks like.

anyway, i would suggest removing the empty lines inside the targets of 
"moz/extractfiles.mk".

note that a new checkout of "solenv" won't help at all.

tschau...

ause

Joerg Barfurth wrote:
> Hi Jack,
> 
> [email protected] wrote:
> 
>> Well, that ought to teach me to comment stuff out. Now, it
>> crashes in the very next block of code with this error:
>>
>> /cygdrive/c/downloads/openOffice/src680_m117/moz
>> dmake:  extractfiles.mk:  line 240:  Error -- Expecting
>> macro or rule defn, foun
>> d neither
>>
> 
> Looking at that error and your previous one gives an idea of the 
> problem. It probably was caused by cvs (maybe the version you are using 
> or some option ?).
> 
>> The code it's crashing in now is this:
>>
>> # copy files in COMPONENT_RUNTIMELIST
>>     +$(foreach,file,$(COMPONENT_RUNTIMELIST) $(COPY)
>> $(MOZ_BIN_DIR)$/components$/$(DLLPRE)$(file)$(DLLPOST) \
>>     $(RUNTIME_DIR)$/components$/$(DLLPRE)$(file)$(DLLPOST) &&)
>> \
>>     echo >& $(NULLDEV)
>>
> 
> The contents of this is irrelevant. This code is supposed to be part of 
> a rule definition (the $(MISC)$/build$/so_moz_runtime_files one).
> 
> Apparently dmake does not reckognize that this piece of code (and 
> earlier the @echo in the non-Solaris case) is still part of that rule, 
> due to the blank-looking lines that separate the blocks.
> 
> IIRC these lines must not be empty, but should contain a 'tab' character 
> at the beginning that signals to dmake that they are still part of the 
> rule. Either cvs or an oversmart text editor apparently has stripped 
> this tab in the line before '# copy files in RES_FILELIST' (possibly in 
> more).
> 
>> Now, I have to wonder if it's not unzipping the files in
>> the /moz/zipped directory.
>>
>> In short, something is not right, and commenting out the
>> effects of testing for solaris didn't fix anything.
>>
>> More research. Maybe this new "bug" will trigger some more
>> ideas.
>>
> 
> Maybe a fresh checkout of solenv is the most promising idea to fix this.
> 
> HTH, Joerg
>