Re: AM_CPPFLAGS vs INCLUDES

[Kevin P. Fleming]

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:

> My point was not entirely that the documentation was wrong.  It is an
> extremely useful capability to be able to define a common base set of
> CPPFLAGS and then use per-target CPPFLAGS to extend these (equivalent
> to +=).  Otherwise the Makefile.am has to be very messy and large,
> since as soon as you add one per-target CPPFLAGS, you then need to
> start passing all CPPFLAGS via individual per-target CPPFLAGS

Are you sure about that last part Bob? I have Makefiles that do:

AM_CPPFLAGS = -I../foo -DBAR

src_foo_CPPFLAGS = -DBAZ $(AM_CPPFLAGS)

and this works just fine. I can then ensure that my common CPPFLAGS are 
incorporated for a target that also needs special flags.