[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Building things a little differently?
From: |
John Calcote |
Subject: |
Re: Building things a little differently? |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:57:12 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ralf,
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Automake has no builtin rules for moc files. So you need to take this
> up with whoever provides those rules. FWIW, in one package this is what
> we use:
I was wondering how difficult it would be to modify Automake such that
true extensions could be written. For example, Automake has built-in
support for Libtool's LTLIBRARIES primitive. Wouldn't it be cool to
support a type of primary extension file, that would allow one to define
a new type of primary? This file would provide the rules that a new
primary would support, lists that it would update - like the distro file
list, etc.
Just a thought. Would this be particularly difficult?
Regards,
John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIRFCYdcgqmRY/OH8RArfmAKCbSTr1HthlH7G9LW84xa2TF+ANVwCfT+Bt
ucIi0QH9wOB7s/xxGivcB90=
=kNzv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----