Hello Miles,
* Miles Bader wrote on Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 03:36:50AM CET:
> Eric Blake <[email protected]> writes:
> > - For programs and libraries, automake now detects
> > EXTRA_foo_DEPENDENCIES and
> > adds them to the normal list of dependencies, but without
> > overwriting the
> > foo_DEPENDENCIES variable, which is normally computed by automake.
>
> Hmm, is there a convention about whether to use names like
> "EXTRA_foo_DEPENDENCIES" vs. "foo_EXTRA_DEPENDENCIES"?
>
> I would have guessed the latter, as it seems more consistent (and a bit
> prettier)...
There is precedence for the former naming with EXTRA_foo_SOURCES:
For each primary, there is one additional variable named by
prepending `EXTRA_' to the primary name. This variable is used to list
objects that may or may not be built, depending on what `configure'
decides. [...]
That said, as this isn't in a released version yet there is time to fix
things if need be. I just figured the above was reason enough to go
with the current name.
Cheers,
Ralf
