Re: libltdl & Automake improvements

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Gary V.Vaughan wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 8 Sep 2004, at 00:05, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > It seems a shame that non-recursive packages must become recursive in 
> > order to build libltdl.  Using Automake includes, Automake conditionals, 
> > and well-defined conventions, libltdl's Makefile.am could simply be 
> > included into the package's own Makefile.am.  This would allow libltdl 
> > targets to be built without any additional recursion, and without creating 
> > another Makefile.in.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> What about projects that want to use libltdl, but not automake?  We shouldn't
> force the parent project to use particular tools.  As long as we continue to 
> support non-automake parent projects, then:  +1 from me.
>
> I expect that just means making sure libltdl/configure.ac can build 
> libltdl.la
> as a subproject, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Right.  The form/structure of libltdl/Makefile.am would support 
configuration as a stand-alone Makefile as well as working when 
included by another Makefile.am file.  I am not quite sure what that 
would entail.  It will probably require a different version of the 
file to support inclusion since the definitions would change.

For example, "libltdlc_la_SOURCES" would need to be changed to
libltdl_libltdlc_la_SOURCES and assignments to Automake standard 
variables like CLEANFILES would need to use += rather than =.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen