Re: Recursive make harmful

[Alexandre Duret-Lutz]

>>> "Richard" == Richard Boulton <address@hidden> writes:

 Richard> On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 11:16:45AM +0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
 >> There is something nice about having one Makefile.am in each
 >> subdirectory, it's that it helps to make selfcontained and
 >> reusable modules.

 Richard> What is being advocated is that we keep having Makefile.am's in each
 Richard> separate directory (there's no question that this is desirable for
 Richard> maintainability), but that automake combines them all together into a
 Richard> top-level Makefile.in, rather than building Makefile.in's in each
 Richard> directory.

Sorry, I was answering to Tom's comment regarding what's possible to
do with *current* CVS automake.

 >> But that's really painful.  Does s.o. has another idea?  (I'm
 >> thinking that maybe automake could figure `bar/foo' from the
 >> include path, and do something helpful with that...).

 Richard> With separate Makefile.am's in each directory,
 Richard> automake should be able to figure the bar/foo out from
 Richard> the directory paths.  The user shouldn't have to worry
 Richard> about what the path to the top-level is.

Is this really possible?  Makefile.am files may contains rules
which need to be patched if you move them at another level.
Somehow, each target should be written in a relocatable way,
taking care of directory paths.

-- 
Alexandre Duret-Lutz