[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: $(EXEEXT) in TESTS required?

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: $(EXEEXT) in TESTS required?
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:20:15 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

Hi Simon,

* Simon Josefsson wrote on Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:42:17AM CET:
> It doesn't seem to matter if I change noinst_PROGRAMS into
> check_PROGRAMS, I still have to add $(EXEEXT) to the binaries in TESTS
> for things to work.
> TESTS += test-gc
> check_PROGRAMS = test-gc
> =>
> make[2]: Entering directory `/home/jas/src/gsasl/lib/tests'
> i586-mingw32msvc-gcc -g -O2    test-gc.c   -o test-gc
> test-gc.c:26:16: gc.h: No such file or directory

I can't reconstruct that (from non-mingw tests).  Which Automake version
is this?  Which Automake options are in effect?

> > Which gets me to a more general point: would the additional flexibility
> > gained from using gnulib-specific variables in Makefile.am snippets be
> > worth its additional cost of requiring the user to associate them with
> > Automake variables?  And no, I don't know a general answer here.
> I wanted that earlier -- I wanted to write my own Makefile.am and
> simply include a "gnulib.mk" or similar.  However, I yielded and
> places the gnulib tests in a separate directory and I haven't had any
> problems with that so far.

Yes, giving up non-recursive Makefiles helps here.

> It may be useful if you want to mix gnulib files with other files in
> the same directory.  Currently, gnulib pretty much assume you allocate
> separate directories for gnulib that it owns completely.
> So, I don't see any strong reason to do this now, even if I think it
> would have been cleaner.

OK, thanks for your opinion.


reply via email to

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