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

[Jim Meyering]

Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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...

Which/whose rule is that?
Maybe you're thinking of Makefile.in?

I think the `magic' of automake is just fine.
I'd rather not have to have to remember to add new files
in two or three places if Automake can do it for me.

As I recall, one of the primary goals of automake
has always been to simplify and shorten Makefile.am files.
There are many examples of files that are distributed
yet not listed in Makefile.am.