[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Plan for single Makefile

From: Eric Siegerman
Subject: Re: Plan for single Makefile
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:50:24 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 12:57:40AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> [Eric Siegerman wrote:]
> > So how about this?  Write a Makefile in each subdirectory, that:
> >   - includes all the dependency and command info from the
> >     entire project
> >   - relocates directory paths to make sense from the directory in
> >     question
> >   - customizes the phony targets to include only the ones from
> >     that directory and below
> > 
> > 1a\Makefile would look like:
> >     ROOT = ..
> >     include $(ROOT)/Makefile
> > 
> IIRC include is one of the not-as-portable-as-it-could-be make features.

You're absolutely right.  The whole-project dependencies and
rebuild rules should be incorporated bodily into each directory's
Makefile, NOT pulled in via "include".

(That's what I meant to say all along.  My first thought had been
to use "include", but then I realized that was a bad idea.  In
rewriting my post to remove references to "include", I missed one
or two.  Sorry for the confusion.

My example 1a\Makefile should have read:
        ROOT = ..       # Not sure if this is needed, but it couldn't hurt

        all: ...

        install: ...

        # big mess of dependencies and commands; identical in all
        # Makefile's, except for the directory prefixes.

> I was aiming to only use the Makefile features used by automake today..

A worthy goal.


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea.
        - RFC 1925 (quoting an unnamed source)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]