[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Plan for single Makefile
From: |
Michael Poole |
Subject: |
Re: Plan for single Makefile |
Date: |
27 Jul 2001 19:51:55 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Academic Rigor) |
Why would an `import' statement be necessary?
It seems like the directory tree structure could be inferred from
SUBDIRS; if Makefile.am exists in the subdirectory and the user hasn't
inhibited single-Makefile-mode, then automake could perform the
various rewriting rules you describe. If no Makefile.am exists, or
the user inhibited single-Makefile-mode, then automake could fall back
to the "cd $(TARGDIR); make $(TARGET)" type behavior.
(I personally know of nothing wrong with SUBDIRS except that its
current implementation uses recursive make; it has the flexibility of
an import statement and is at least a little familiar to people.
Keeping SUBDIRS also makes it easier to keep portability with older
versions of automake -- which is primarily useful for public CVS
checkouts where not all users have the most recent versions of
auto-tools.)
-- Michael Poole
- Plan for single Makefile, Tom Tromey, 2001/07/27
- Re: Plan for single Makefile, Pavel Roskin, 2001/07/27
- Re: Plan for single Makefile,
Michael Poole <=
- Re: Plan for single Makefile, Lars Hecking, 2001/07/27
- Re: Plan for single Makefile, Eric Siegerman, 2001/07/27
- Re: Plan for single Makefile, Robert Collins, 2001/07/28
- Re: Plan for single Makefile, Eric Siegerman, 2001/07/30
- Re: Plan for single Makefile, Tom Tromey, 2001/07/31