Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES

[Harlan Stenn]

I posted without fully reading and understanding the macros involved.

I know that sometimes I have had "configure" do things for me, and
after getting burned a few times I discovered what "steps" needed to be
moved to config.status.

I don't know offhand if the steps described will happen in configure or
config.status; my intent was to make sure this distinction was noted.

H
--
> > The problem with doing these things in configure is that one must rerun
> > configure to regenerate the file.
> > Sometimes it is better do produce these things in config.status.
> 
> Doesn't autoconf/automake generate makefile dependencies for the output
> files it configures?  When I have maintainer-mode turned off, the make
> rules automatically rerun config.status when an input file has changed.
> 
> e.g. cd .. && config.status src/foo.h
> 
> In response to Ralf's suggestion:
> AC_CONFIG_FILES([foo.h.tmp:foo.h.in],
>       dnl ... move-if-change foo.h.tmp foo.h
> )
> 
> This will work except that there will be no foo.h: foo.h.tmp dependency
> automatically generated to auto-reconf, which would be nice.  It's not
> difficult to add the rule in the Makefile.am manually, but it's just one
> more thing to remember (and explain to someone reading through my files).
> I'll play around some more...
> 
> 
> David Fang