[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: automake -vs- huge projects
From: |
Bob Friesenhahn |
Subject: |
Re: automake -vs- huge projects |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:40:02 -0600 (CST) |
On 16 Dec 2003, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> %% Bob Friesenhahn <address@hidden> writes:
>
> bf> Per-subdirectory rules and definitions can be added in order to
> bf> significantly reduce the amount of redundant code, and to
> bf> re-enable the capability to usefully override parts of the default
> bf> Makefile.in.
>
> Not if you want to continue to generate portable makefiles.
>
> There is no way in POSIX make (for example) to generate a target in a
> subdirectory using a suffix rule.
Bummer. I wasn't sure about that. At the very least, an effort could
be made to decrease the Makefile size by making maximum use of macro
substitutions.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen
- automake -vs- huge projects, Tom Tromey, 2003/12/16
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Bob Friesenhahn, 2003/12/16
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Paul D. Smith, 2003/12/16
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects,
Bob Friesenhahn <=
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Bob Friesenhahn, 2003/12/16
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Lars Hecking, 2003/12/17
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Paul D. Smith, 2003/12/17
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Bob Friesenhahn, 2003/12/17
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Norman Gray, 2003/12/17
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Ralf Corsepius, 2003/12/18
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Bob Friesenhahn, 2003/12/18
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Paul D. Smith, 2003/12/18
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2003/12/18
- Re: automake -vs- huge projects, Paul D. Smith, 2003/12/19