Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:2665 Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!wizard.pn.com!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.compuserve.com!newsmaster From: 70413 DOT 3023 AT compuserve DOT com (Ben Bacon) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Need HELP installing LIBGRX 1.03! Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 07:02:40 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated Lines: 38 References: <45mep3$l6t AT dub-news-svc-1 DOT compuserve DOT com> Nntp-Posting-Host: ad14-005.compuserve.com To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu Dj-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp peprbv AT cfa0 DOT harvard DOT edu (Bob Babcock) wrote: >Ben Bacon (70413 DOT 3023 AT compuserve DOT com) wrote: >: Even after I clean up the directives, however, the makefiles are still >: bombing with a 'Missing separator' error message referencing the first >: command line following the first dependency list. I can't figure out >: what separator MAKE wants to see, or where! >Is that line indented with a tab or spaces? Many makes require a tab. The lines are indented with spaces, but I doubt this is the problem -- I was getting the same error, referencing the first directive line, before I cleaned up the directive syntax. Note that the message doesn't say a thing about directive syntax, or command syntax, for that matter -- just "Missing separator"! Very helpful. I've used a couple of different MAKEs, and while I'm new to GNU (ha ha), I can't see anything in the makefile syntax that looks like it should cause a problem. Other makefiles work fine. Out of curiosity -- are you using GRX? Did you have any trouble getting it up and running? The first difficulty I encountered was when the README instructed me to execute 'MAKE INSTALL' from the LIBGRX root directory. This should execute a (GRX-supplied) batch file, MAKE.BAT, which in turn runs MAKE.EXE. Unfortunately, the label 'INSTALL' was not defined in MAKE.BAT, so I'm making educated guesses about what operations it *should* be performing, based on the labels and instructions it *does* define. This inconsistency is what makes me wonder whether GRX 1.03.m1 has been superseded by a later version. Anyway, thanks for your reply! Regards, Ben