Re: Hurd source tree; inter-directory dependencies

[Bas Wijnen]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 04:29:29AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Thomas Schwinge wrote on Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:42:28AM CEST:
> > 
> > In the old build system we had the very conventient feature that you
> > could `make progb' from the top level build directory and it would
> > automagically first build the libraries `progb' depends on (as specified
> > by a variable in `progb/Makefile').
> 
> > Would switching to a non-recursive build layout solve this problem?
> 
> Yes, that would be the simplest way to achieve this.
> 
> > Keeping the current per-directory `Makefile.am's, I can imagine doing
> > some hackery (and already have some ideas about it) in the top level
> > `Makefile.am', but I first wanted to be sure that it didn't exist
> > already.
> 
> I think you could as well hard-code rules for specific targets in the
> toplevel Makefile.am.  But then you'd have to keep both the rules in the
> toplevel Makefile.am and in the subdirectories in sync somehow.  In a
> nonrecursive setup, you'd get that for free.

In one of my projects, I use the nonrecursive approach, but I still have a
Makefile.am per directory.  Automake obviously isn't built to support it, but
it does work.  If you're interested how it looks, check the Makefile.ams at
http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/svn/trunk/drivers/ (and its subdirectories).

There's one major hack in there: automake doesn't support += on things like
bin_PROGRAMS, so I had to create temporary variables for it and do
bin_PROGRAMS = $(programs).  Also, in the included Makefile.ams you must
remember to always use the full path (from the toplevel Makefile.am).  And
finally, my tree builds all the programs (and libraries) to top_builddir.
Check out the nobase_ prefix if you don't want that.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature