[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Enhancing nobase_
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: Enhancing nobase_ |
Date: |
Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:05:01 +0100 |
Le 19 mars 09 à 14:53, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
Akim Demaille wrote:
Hi autofriends!
nobase_ is really a nice feature to cope with a structured
hierarchy of files. But it does not work well with packages that
avoid recursive Makefiles. In my case for instance, my package has
a hierarchy of files in $(top_srcdir)/include, but it has no
include/Makefile.am, just $(top_srcdir)/Makefile.am, so I cannot
use nobase_include_HEADERS, I have to declare a bazillion of
include subdirs.
Hmm? I don't understand.
nobase_include_HEADERS = foo/far/faz.h
nobase_include_HEADERS += boo/bar/baz.h
just works.
Sorry I was unclear :( My examples meant to make it clearer.
My top Makefile.am cannot use nobase_, because it would look like
nobase_include_HEADERS = include/foo.hh include/foo/bar.hh include/foo/
baz.hh
which would result in
/usr/local/include/include/foo.hh
/usr/local/include/include/foo/bar.hh
/usr/local/include/include/foo/baz.hh
which is not what I wanted (include/include). The problem of nobase
is that it forces the path inside the package to be exactly the path
in DESTDIR. I'm saying that it would be nice to have include_BASE or
whatever be the prefix of the paths in the packages compared to the
path in DESTDIR. In my example, the include_BASE is include/, because
that's where all my headers are. Yet make install must ignore that
include/ prefix in DESTDIR, as it's already part of includedir.
With this explanation, maybe my initial message is now more
understandable :(