On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 08:36:06AM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 24/04/2013 00:10, Gavin Smith wrote: > > > > My question is, is there any interest in this kind of approach? I feel > > that it would be a step towards making the GNU build system easier to > > use and understand. > > As a distribution developer this seems to me just yet another hack that > is going to cause us great pain in the future if it is found in the wild..
I'm not sure I see why. It has the virtue of removing a step of indirection in the intermediary Makefile.in, and so serves to simplify things. Including the substituted variable definitions via a separate file would also serve to make things more robust: there's only a single source for them, rather than duplicate definitions across every Makefile.in. And it's now possible to have rules depend upon the Makefile.am, Makefile and/or the configuration data which can then be used to trigger Makefile regeneration and rebuilds in a more informed manner, avoiding some of the rebuilds that now occur since you've decoupled the make logic and configuration logic. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools `- GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800
