[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Recursive targets for the user

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Recursive targets for the user
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 00:34:39 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 09:32:19PM CEST:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 09:27:53PM CEST:
> > What we could do for the sake of backward-compatibility is to keep
> > for some time the old `foo-am' and `foo-recursive' targets as "alias"
> > to resp. the new `foo-local' and `foo' ones:
> >   foo-am: foo-local
> >   foo-recursive: foo
> > so that packages which used our internals in saner ways could still
> > work (for some time).
> But using -local for this is pretty inconsistent, too.  foo-local
> targets exist to extend foo targets.  The internal foo-am targets are
> the nonrecursive part of the foo targets.  They serve different
> purposes, and mixing that up is not a good idea.
> So no, we shouldn't use -local.  At least not if you want consistency
> between user-provided recursive targets and automake-provided ones.
> And if we need another suffix anyway, might as well use -am.

I think I should restate this, because my previous post was a bit

I think we don't need to publish the *-am interface.  We only publish
that with a recursive rule foo,
  foo           is the public target
  foo-local     is the thing the user can specify to extend it in this

and then
  foo-am        is the nonrecursive (generated) part of the rule that
                mostly either does nothing or depends on foo-local if
  foo-recursive is the recursive (generated) part

What am I overlooking?


reply via email to

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