Re: automake parallel install
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 11:45:12AM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Maybe `automake' should not be a symlink but a script that > > select the right automake version to use for a project. > > I heard Debian has had poor results with that, but I haven't tried it > myself. It's probably hard to get right unless you can find some > really reliable way to pick an automake. It would be neat if so. Debian has used such a scheme for "autoconf" since about last May. I was initially horrified at the idea, but it works a lot better than you might think. The autoconf script will run version 2.13 unless it can detect some feature that indicates autoconf 2.5x is used: * a new option is given, such as --trace, or * configure.ac is used, or * AC_PREREQ() specifies version > 2.13 The same wrapper is used for "autoconf", "autoheader", and "autoreconf". In my experience, the heuristics work decently well. After fixing my macros, I can always force version 2.50 using AC_PREREQ in configure.in. Debian's automake packages don't use this scheme, but I don't see why it shouldn't work just as well. Automake could, for example, scan the value of AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS to see whether to invoke automake-1.4 or automake-1.5. -Steve -- by Rocket to the Moon, by Airplane to the Rocket, by Taxi to the Airport, by Frontdoor to the Taxi, by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ... - They Might Be Giants
some distributed header problem
i've the following pb : my project is as follow : -> a dir contain some general headers in many subdir -> some dirs for libraries -> some dirs for programs i'd like to add in a makefile something like that _SOURCES = $(topsourcedir)/headers/smthg.h . to have make check if smthg.h have changed how could i do that? second question : why are makefile generated by automake so strange? all depends on all-am that only depends on ... that finally only depend on my project building rules why so much redirections and why using so much sinonymes? a lot of .PHONY are the same couldn't it be cleaned ? (it will be easier to understand) third question : adding some new target : bin-dist and headers-dist, install-headers. thanks for reading ``Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible.'' ICQ : 127532893 _ Le journal des abonnés Caramail - http://www.carazine.com
Re: some distributed header problem
xxx_SOURCES = $(top_srcdir)/headers/foo.h but this is buggy right now (see the thread PR 224). as for #2, read the FAQ/documentation. You should anyway. for #3, also same answer as for #2. Rob - Original Message - From: "cityhunter x-y-z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: some distributed header problem i'd like to add in a makefile something like that _SOURCES = $(topsourcedir)/headers/smthg.h . to have make check if smthg.h have changed how could i do that? second question : why are makefile generated by automake so strange? all depends on all-am that only depends on ... that finally only depend on my project building rules why so much redirections and why using so much sinonymes? a lot of .PHONY are the same couldn't it be cleaned ? (it will be easier to understand) third question : adding some new target : bin-dist and headers-dist, install-headers. thanks for reading ``Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible.'' ICQ : 127532893 _ Le journal des abonnés Caramail - http://www.carazine.com
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/
There's no link to the sources.redhat.com/automake site at the project page on gnu.org. IMO such a link would be helpful. Rob
Re: some distributed header problem
> ">" == cityhunter x-y-z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> i'd like to add in a makefile something like that >> _SOURCES =3D $(topsourcedir)/headers/smthg.h . >> to have make check if smthg.h have changed how could i >> do that? First, using $(top_srcdir) like this doesn't work. There is already a PR on this. Second, you don't need to add a .h file to a _SOURCES macro (especially one in another directory) in order to get dependency tracking. That happens automatically. >> second question : why are makefile generated by automake so >> strange? Automake implements a lot of features. Sometimes it is easier to generate the code in a way that accommodates any feature, even if you don't use it. Some of the ugliness also comes from workarounds for bugs in vendor `make' implementations. And, finally, automake sometimes implements things which most hand-written Makefiles don't attempt. >> and why using so much sinonymes? a lot of .PHONY are the >> same couldn't it be cleaned ? (it will be easier to >> understand) I think the .PHONY lists are already unique. Can you show me a time when you get a duplicate? >> third question : adding some new target : bin-dist and >> headers-dist, install-headers. I don't understand your question. You can already add any new target that you want. Tom