Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I downloaded an folder on
http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/t/towitoko/towitoko_2.0.7.orig.tar.gz
I unzipped it to:
C:\towitoko-2.0.7
In the instructions it says:
The simplest way to compile this package is:
cd' to the directory containing the package's source code and type
./configure' to configure the package for your system. If you're
using csh' on an old version of System V, you might need to type
sh ./configure' instead to prevent csh' from trying to execute
configure' itself.
Running `configure' takes awhile. While running, it prints some
messages telling which features it is checking for.
Type `make' to compile the package.
Optionally, type `make check' to run any self-tests that come with
the package.
Type `make install' to install the programs and any data files and
documentation.
You can remove the program binaries and object files from the
source code directory by typing make clean'. To also remove the
files thatconfigure' created (so you can compile the package for
a different kind of computer), type make distclean'. There is
also amake maintainer-clean' target, but that is intended mainly
for the package's developers. If you use it, you may have to get
all sorts of other programs in order to regenerate files that came
with the distribution.
SO i typed in my console:
C:\Users\animal>cd C:\towitoko-2.0.7
C:\towitoko-2.0.7>./configure
The command "." is either fals wrote or couldnt be found.
What did I wrong?
A quick google tells me that the code you are trying to compile is what can be found here: https://github.com/cprados/towitoko-linux
That is definitely a linux driver, and won't work in a Windows OS without serious work.
I'm not sure if there is a similar product available for Windows.
Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
WINDOWS: What is the difference between (.exe)file and installed .exe application?
Generally an c/c++ IDE will give you FILENAME.EXE (PE format) application output (console, GUI both) ; the output will run when clicked but IT DOES NOT enjoy facilities like an installed software packages! what difference it makes?
How can I convert my binary PE-format .exe file to standard installable software package with full professional touch? Please provide option which are free of cost?
There is no difference between an .exe file and an "installed exe application", except that one was copied into it's place by an installer.
The installer usually allows the user to choose where the application (.exe) gets installed, creates any necessary shortcuts and registration entries, the Start menu entries, and so forth. The executable (.exe) is still the same.
All of the above can be done manually as well. The installer simply bundles them up and automates the process to make it easier for the user, and to ensure that everything gets done properly.
There are dozens of installation creation packages out there (including the one that is included in Visual Studio itself when you create a deployment package). A popular free one, if you don't need an MSI based installation, is Inno Setup. It's free, allows you to customize your installation very easily, and pretty widely used.
If you must have an MSI installer, WIX is a popular choice, although it's much more difficult to learn and use than Inno Setup is.
There are many other available installers, both free and commercial. For more information about other possibilities, search here for "windows installers" or try searching Google or Bing for the same thing.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I often find myself wanting to compile an example file included in a larger makefile-based open source c project. Is there a uniform best way to proceed?
I can't just compile the one file using gcc because there are all sorts of headers and dependencies that the c file requires which are scattered about the project. Here is a concrete example:
HOCR (google cache here), is an open source Hebrew language optical character recognition program that is primarily GTK based. I need a command-line only version. Amongst the source code (downloadable here), there is a command-line only example c file: examples/hocr/hocr-cmd.c that does exactly what I want.
How do I compile the example file?
In the base directory I can run ./configure, make and make install but as far as I can tell this doesn't actually compile the example file.
Also, in addition to the main Makefile I see a number of Makefile.am and Makefile.in files. Are these relevant? Is there a general guiding principle to proceed? This is not the first time I've gotten stuck here.
For those who are interested, I am running Ubuntu 10 Lucid on VirtualBox Virtual Machine.
Somewhere in Makefile there is a target that builds either the specific file or the files in the directory. Find that target and make it. Additionally, there may be a separate Makefile in that directory or one of its parents that is used for building them.
.am and .in files are for autotools, which is the step before ./configure. You should not need to modify them in normal use.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I've got a project where I want to do some stuff that would be trivial in bash but where I want/need a binary with has zero external dependencies. So, has anyone written a self contained lib (i.e. not a wrapper around system()) that lets you do bash like stuff from inside C?
Off hand, the things I expect to need are: cp, rm, wget, tftp, ar, tar, guzip and maybe dpkg but I think I can side step that one.
To answer the comments: I'm looking for something along the lines of a statically linked busy-box but where I don't need a shell file as a program for it and where things I don't use automatically don't even get linked in.
You need busybox.
I fully agree with Busybox. Additionally, if you get the source code for dpkg, you'll find a small library inside that gives you access to most of its functionality.
You have a lot of custom requirements, and as you say, you don't want "things I don't use don't even get[ting] linked in", so you're going to have to do a lot of hand-hacking.
If you compile all the external dependencies into object files, you should be able to link them in to your own tool (assuming no namespace conflicts; a big assumption, but not too bad if you're careful), you should be able to do it if you just excise their main() functions.
In fact, for the dependencies, you can probably even just rename their main(), and have the tool available to you as if you were calling it from the command-line yourself, by packing their argc/argv, though this would likely have some overhead, rather than calling the individual functions yourself.
The aforementioned busybox already offers all the features you require (even tar and wget) except for dpkg, and since there's already a lib for that, I'd say you're well on your way.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I downloaded the developerkit from fastcgi.com. The kit has an examples folder that has a few source files their final, runnable, compiled files. If I put these compiled files in a cgi-bin folder on my apache server (my macbook pro), add the extension fcgi, and go to the url that they are located, they run perfect.
I have a test c soruce file that I want to compile to a fastcgi script. The source file simply prints hello world.
Does anyone have a good ref or easy explanation on how to compile the source file to a runnable fcgi file? I dont understand the docs...
Its a mistake to think of your program as a script. That being said, a FastCGI application needs two things:
A web server that is able to pass requests to it (usually on port 9000)
The FastCGI library
Presumably, you have installed FastCGI (including the shared objects and headers) and have written something that uses it. You would then compile it via:
gcc -Wall -o myfastcgiapp -lfcgi myfastcgiapp.c
You will then need to configure your web server to start it and pass requests to it. I'm pretty sure, from the limited information you provided that you forgot to tell the linker that you were using symbols from FastCGI (hence -Lfcgi).
It could also be that you did not install the library correctly.
More information such as:
Web server being used
Compiler errors (if any)
Environment (OS)
Source to your app (as much as possible)
... would really help get better answers. The following thread discussing the same under NginX might help you. Please consider revising your question, however, even if this solves your problem.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last year and left it closed:
Not suitable for this site We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Improve this question
I've just started a job where I'm programming in C on a Mac, which is my first experience using a Mac for development. For now I'm using Xcode as my editor, then using make/gcc/svn at the command line for compiling and source control.
Is there a good, full featured IDE out there for Macs that will compile C code (something comparable to VS would be ideal), or should I stick with these low level tools?
EDIT: so I called Xcode a "low level tool" because I was under the impression that it was just a text editor for code, like gvim. I will definitely look into it's compiling/source control features.
You can also try Eclipse with the CDT plugin.
Good ide: Xcode
Good non-ide option: vim/make/gcc
textmate - Download from Macromates website.
The latest version is textmate2 but some people choose to keep using textmate-1.5 because there are significant differences between the two versions and they're both awesome.
I just stumbled over Qt Creator. It seems to hold up really nice where every other IDE failed me when working with a plain Makefile project.
XCode, Eclipse, IntelliJ or Netbeans wouldn't resolve dependencies, or load my project in a good way. In Qt Creator I could just point to New Project » Import Project » Import Existing Project and voila!
Remember that Objective-C is a superset of C (a pretty pure one, if I recall correctly). You should be able to use XCode for editing, compiling, and debugging.
Here's one solution (which tells you to create a C++ project, then rename main.cpp to main.c)... http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~s70201/C_In_Xcode/Xcode_Tutorial.html
Xcode can manage project and compile for you as any IDE. But if you're familiar with CLI, I would recommand you to use a good editor and your usual build tools. Emacs and vim are available on os x (using xcode just for its editor is not ideal). Many mac dev love the excellent TextMate editor, but it is not a free (as in freedom) software.
Obviously 'good' is a subjective decision, but Xcode 3.2 is certainly up to par with what you can do in VisualStudio (if one considers VS good, is another thing of course).
I have a project with 250000+ lines of codes, 10 dylibs, helpfile, all in an SVN (Perforce) etc. and hardly ever go outside Xcode.
Xcode has a few peculiar ways to do some things and the debugger is not quite as powerful as the current one in VisualStudio, but overall there's hardly anything you can not do from within the IDE (and the options to adjust the shortcuts within the IDE, Debugger and Editor to your needs are really awesome).