Hi David, * David Byron wrote on Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 03:55:37AM CET: > On November 17, 2005, Ralf wrote: > > > > Regarding the issue whether to put them all into aclocal.m4 > > or into separate files below m4/: Recent aclocal versions > > will generate a bunch of > > > > m4_include([m4/foo.m4]) > > > > statements (if you choose to 'aclocal -I m4'), so there is > > less macro code duplication. I find updating easier if the > > macro files correspond to each other. > > I think this gets me back to the beginning again. I prefer > m4_include(m4/foo.m4) to having the macros copied into aclocal.m4 as > well. But, then make dist doesn't work.
It does if the m4_included files are given with relative paths _and_ lie within the package you are building. > My original two cases were: > > 1. ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I ../../scripts/m4 which pointed outside your package and thus is a nono (do not specify relative paths which point to something outside of your package). > or > > 2. ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I `cd ../../scripts/m4 && pwd` Which is technically ok, but will include the contents in aclocal.m4. > I don't know enough about automake/aclocal to know if a patch there to > fix make dist for #1 is feasible. I'll give it a shot if folks think it > makes sense. It can't be done safely, unless ../../scripts is part of your package. And then it works already, AFAIK (untested). Cheers, Ralf
