In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Akim Demaille writes: >>>>>> "Olly" == Olly Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Olly> It also saves a lot of time if you're using automake and doing >Olly> work that involves changing your Makefile.am-s. Whenever one is >Olly> modified, running make will run automake to update the >Olly> corresponding Makefile.in, then rerun configure to produce a new >Olly> Makefile from that Makefile.in. > >bad example :) Use `config.status src/Makefile'. No need for >configure here. That's what Automake's Makefile do. Oops. Actually I'm not doing it by hand - I was thinking of what happens when you change configure.in rather than Makefile.am. Changes to configure.in are typically somewhat rarer. Cheers, Olly
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Russ Allbery
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Tom Tromey
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Pavel Roskin
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Lars Hecking
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Olly Betts
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Olly Betts
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Pavel Roskin
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Harlan Stenn
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Pavel Roskin
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Greg A. Woods
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Tom Tromey
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Greg A. Woods
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz