Re: [bug-gnulib] using AC_LIBSOURCES: complementing the `Files:' section

[Stepan Kasal]

Hello Jim,

I have read the node (automake)LIBOBJS and I understand now that using
AC_LIBSOURCES is the way which Alexandre recommends.  And I learned to
trust him.  So there is no doubt gnulib has to go this way.

The advantage of AC_LIBSOURCES is that many gnulib modules will have no
Makefile.am fragments, which saves typing (pasting) for people who don't
use gnulib-tool.

The disadvantage is that Automake is too magical here.  We have the rule
that only files listed in the Makefile.am get distributed, and this is
yet another exception to the rule...

I still think that the following alternative scenario, inspired by
Bruno's comment, would be cleaner:

1) There would be no AC_LIBSOURCES.

2) Each module would bring a Makefile.am fragment like this:

        EXTRA_lib_SOURCES += mempcpy.h mempcpy.c

(Note that I added the EXTRA_, so that the object is not compiled by
default.)

3) ``make distcheck'' would do a check that all the necesary files are
really distributed.  One way would be to make a build which would put
all the possible replacements to LIBOBJS.

But as I said, who am I to disagree with the Automake manual?   ;-)

Have a nice day,
        Stepan