On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:59:37 -0500 Norbert Thiebaud <nthieb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> that would break the per-module build-ability, as you noticed below. No it shouldnt. > > headers because I found: > > > > define gb_LinkTarget_add_package_headers > > $(foreach package,$(2),$(call > > gb_LinkTarget__add_internal_headers,$(1),$(call > > gb_Package_get_target,$(package)))) > > $(call gb_LinkTarget_get_clean_target,$(1)) : $(foreach > > package,$(2),$(call gb_Package_get_clean_target,$(package))) > > > > endef > > > > what probably means that when you run make clean in sd you would > > also remove animations' headers ? It would remove the touch-target of the animations header (the empty file that signals to the build system 'everything for the header target is done'), yes -- but it would not remove the headers themselves: It doesnt even know about them as they are declared in animations. So apart from a few possible superfluous relinkings of libs using the animations headers, everything is fine. gb_Library_add_package_headers is the way to go. Best, Bjoern -- https://launchpad.net/~bjoern-michaelsen _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
