Es schrieb Akim Demaille: > > >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Paul> Sorry, I don't understand the question. I went back and read > Paul> the thread, and I still don't understand the question. > > Sorry for being confuse. > > Paul> I did understand Russ Allbery's point. He wrote that if you > Paul> need a config.h variant, then it should be easy enough to create > Paul> the variant with a makefile rule that looks something like this: > > Paul> my_config.h: config.h sed 's/#define /#define MY_/; s/#undef > Paul> /#undef MY_/' <config.h >$@ > > Paul> and once you do that, you don't nee Autoconf to generate > Paul> my_config.h. > > I agree your solution is the most appropriate for their issue, but the > general question I was trying to address was that of hooking commands > to AC_CONFIG_FILES, AC_CONFIG_HEADERS. Some people want some commands > to be ran when the header is created. I was merely looking for the > syntax to code into Autoconf. > > But I'm now tempted to drop this, until someone comes with an actual > need.
the underlying problem is the generation of a order between generated files - no need to spend time on hooks if one can ensure an order another way. It looks logical to put such order-specs into the makefile but it raises other problems with (a) automake not being good at expressing things like aclocal^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hamlocal macros to be transferred into rules and (b) not good at expressing macro-args and any of the current expressions need heavy logics in the core automake perl base - which atleast looks overdone for the simple thing we like to achieve. If autoconf could be instructed to follow a certain order, that would well be enough - nobody cares much if the generation-lines end up in the makefile.in or in the config.status body. cheers, -- guido http://freespace.sf.net/guidod GCS/E/S/P C++/++++$ ULHS L++w- N++@ d(+-) s+a- r+@>+++ y++ 5++X- (geekcode)
