On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Allan Caffee wrote on Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:43:02AM CET: > > Although I must admit I'm not sure what he means by > > > > [...] this shouldn't matter for read-only trees iff your > > > > dependencies are set up correctly [...] > > I'm not really sure how else you could have generated.c on the source > > tree and not break dist-check, but then I'm probably missing something > > obvious. > > With distcheck, the rule for generated.c should never be invoked in the > first place, as the distributed file should be up to date wrt. its > prerequisites. > > > Also, I don't want to split hairs here but isn't it less portable to use > > $@ in a non-suffix rule? > > No. Using $< is unportable outside of suffix rules, but $@ may be used > everywhere.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. ~Allan
