[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Alternate automake output?
From: |
William Robertson |
Subject: |
Re: Alternate automake output? |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:52:58 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On 23 July 2002, Tom Tromey address@hidden wrote:
| William> Good, except that configuration runs are abysmally slow.
|
| Have you enabled caching? That is the first thing I'd try. It will
| help but won't solve the problem; each configure script has a certain
| amount of unavoidable overhead; your particular configuration
| multiplies this overhead by the number of modules.
Caching definitely helps, but I also agree with the rest...
| William> The sticking point is getting automake, when run from the top
| William> level, to generate something other than a Makefile.in in each
| William> module directory, so the module's local Makefile.in doesn't
| William> get clobbered.
|
| Just when you think you've heard it all... :-)
Heh, I was afraid you were going to say something like that.
| William> I know this is a hack, but could automake play along with
| William> this, and would this work? Alternatively, is there a cleaner
| William> way to achieve this goal?
|
| Well, you could try it. One horrible thought I had is that you could
| AC_SUBST(AM_MAKEFLAGS) in configure, and set AM_MAKEFLAGS to something
| like `-f OtherMakefileName'. I don't know if this will work; you
| could give it a try.
|
| Tom
Thanks for the help, both you and Rob. I'll see what I can come up
with.
--
| William Robertson | GPG:0x90A3BED4 | address@hidden |