>>> "Richard" == Richard Boulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 11:16:45AM +0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>> There is something nice about having one Makefile.am in each
>> subdirectory, it's that it helps to make selfcontained and
>> reusable modules.
Richard> What is being advocated is that we keep having Makefile.am's in each
Richard> separate directory (there's no question that this is desirable for
Richard> maintainability), but that automake combines them all together into a
Richard> top-level Makefile.in, rather than building Makefile.in's in each
Richard> directory.
Sorry, I was answering to Tom's comment regarding what's possible to
do with *current* CVS automake.
>> But that's really painful. Does s.o. has another idea? (I'm
>> thinking that maybe automake could figure `bar/foo' from the
>> include path, and do something helpful with that...).
Richard> With separate Makefile.am's in each directory,
Richard> automake should be able to figure the bar/foo out from
Richard> the directory paths. The user shouldn't have to worry
Richard> about what the path to the top-level is.
Is this really possible? Makefile.am files may contains rules
which need to be patched if you move them at another level.
Somehow, each target should be written in a relocatable way,
taking care of directory paths.
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz
