On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 06:07:57PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Bas Wijnen wrote on Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:58:47AM CEST: > > > > In one of my projects, I use the nonrecursive approach, but I still have a > > Makefile.am per directory.
That's also what I had in mind when thinking about switching to a non-recursive build layout. I'm now going this route and it's working just fine so far. :-) > Yes, it's a good idea to group things this way (by using included > Makefile.am snippets) I'm now using a `Makefrag.am' per module, i.e. per directory. > > There's one major hack in there: automake doesn't support += on things like > > bin_PROGRAMS, so I had to create temporary variables for it and do > > bin_PROGRAMS = $(programs). > > This sounds awfully like a bug in an old Automake version to me. I can confirm that this is not necessary with recent versions of Automake. > > And > > finally, my tree builds all the programs (and libraries) to top_builddir. > > Check out the nobase_ prefix if you don't want that. > > Check out the Automake option subdir-objects, if you don't want that. Also works just fine. :-) Regards, Thomas _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
