Akim Demaille writes:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I'm no Automake maintainer, so you may just forget everything I will
> say :)
>
> I think your patch addresses a very interesting issue, and it would be
> great to apply it, but it's getting very big. If there are
> independent chunks in it, you should try to keep them separate.
>
> Also, if possible, you should try to write new tests to be added to
> the Automake test suite.
>
> Just my FF0.02.
>
> Akim
It's getting big because the automake suffix handling was weak to
start with and needed fixing before considering built sources.
Also its not clear if/when automake maintainers are going to have the
time to apply any patches at all, so I'd decided to keep it in one
piece to make it easy to apply and keep current.
I could split it into four or five patches (that would be
incrementally applied) e.g:
1) gcc style cpp depcomp
2) patsubst style variable substitution
3) suffix supplied dependencies
4) improved suffix rule recognition
5) per target built source hooks.
I would be willing to add tests for new features (so long as this
didn't result in the patch being rejected for being big <g>)
If I was to do this, would someone with CVS access consider applying
them in a timely manner? I suspect I might go mad trying to maintain
five source trees for any length of time.
Alex.
