Es schrieb Paul Eggert: > > > Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:48:30 +0100 > > From: Guido Draheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > your point is quite fine - why not let the lines > > go into the makefile instead of config.status. I just wonder how to > > do this - if it would be possible then it would be faaaar better > > since `make` can take of the dependencies. > > Since it's a make rule, I would put this sort of thing into Automake > rather than into Autoconf. You can look at how Automake does things, > for ideas about how to implement it.
the syntax model of automake isn't that well-suited to the problem, since the input-file might something different, nor is the output file always the same or the prefix that is to be used. Those are the three optional arguments of the prefix-config macros. If you have a proposal how to express that in automake-terms, don't hide it... -- guido http://freespace.sf.net/guidod GCS/E/S/P C++/++++$ ULHS L++w- N++@ d(+-) s+a- r+@>+++ y++ 5++X- (geekcode)
