[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sc_makefile_at_at_check and gettext LOCALEDIR
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: sc_makefile_at_at_check and gettext LOCALEDIR |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Apr 2011 13:47:46 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I'm seeing some syntax-check warnings like this:
>
> lib/Makefile.am:623: DEFS = -DLOCALEDIR=\"$(localedir)\" @DEFS@
> src/Makefile.am:716: DEFS = -DLOCALEDIR=\"$(localedir)\" @DEFS@
> maint.mk: use $(...), not @...@
> make: *** [sc_makefile_at_at_check] Error 1
>
> However the gettext 0.18.1 manual still recommends using the lines used
> above. Should the gettext manual be updated, or are there valid
> situations when @....@ is appropriate that maint.mk could detect?
If the maintainer was to write
DEFS = -DLOCALEDIR=\"$(localedir)\" $(DEFS)
it would be a circular definition, leading to this error with GNU make:
Makefile:1: *** Recursive variable `DEFS' references itself (eventually).
Stop.
So the use of @...@ is not only appropriate here, it is even mandatory.
Note that for packages that use a hand-written Makefile.am (as opposed to a
hand-written Makefile.in), the gettext documentation [1] suggests to augment
AM_CPPFLAGS instead of DEFS. Both work, AM_CPPFLAGS is just more modern style.
Bruno
[1] http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/src_002fMakefile.html
--
In memoriam Siamanto <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamanto>
- sc_makefile_at_at_check and gettext LOCALEDIR, Simon Josefsson, 2011/04/24
- Re: sc_makefile_at_at_check and gettext LOCALEDIR,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: sc_makefile_at_at_check and gettext LOCALEDIR, Simon Josefsson, 2011/04/24
- Re: sc_makefile_at_at_check and gettext LOCALEDIR, Bruno Haible, 2011/04/24
- Re: sc_makefile_at_at_check and gettext LOCALEDIR, Jim Meyering, 2011/04/25
- Re: sc_makefile_at_at_check and gettext LOCALEDIR, Jim Meyering, 2011/04/25
- Re: sc_makefile_at_at_check and gettext LOCALEDIR, Jim Meyering, 2011/04/25
- Re: attributes pure and const, Bruno Haible, 2011/04/25
- Re: attributes pure and const, Jim Meyering, 2011/04/26
- Re: attributes pure and const, Jim Meyering, 2011/04/29