NightStrike writes:
> If you include src/more/Makefile.am into src/Makefile.am (a perfectly
> valid thing to do), you will be unpleasantly surprised that
> src/more/Makefile.am has to actually know where it is in the source
> tree. It needs lines like this:
>
> prog_SOURCES += more/file3.c more/f
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Peter Johansson wrote:
>>
>> Makefile.am [in topdir]. For those fragment files, it would probably be
>> confusing if paths were inserted into variables. Perhaps one could have a
>> switch to turn that feature on.
>
>
>
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Peter Johansson wrote:
Makefile.am [in topdir]. For those fragment files, it would probably be
confusing if paths were inserted into variables. Perhaps one could have a
switch to turn that feature on.
Yes, it would be good to have a syntax which tells Automake to
perform
On 11/20/12 7:16 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
A good paradigm for non-recursive make is to put Automake include
fragments into each directory which support the files in that
directory. The top Automake.am then includes these fragments. It
would be useful if there was a syntax whereby the necess
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Eric Blake wrote:
You can reduce the pain by using variables:
more = more
prog_SOURCES += ${more}/file3.c ${more}/file4.c
so that a rename now only has to touch the 'more =' line, rather than
every use.
The most serious problem is this incantation for 'prog' output to
s
On 11/19/2012 12:51 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> If you include src/more/Makefile.am into src/Makefile.am (a perfectly
> valid thing to do), you will be unpleasantly surprised that
> src/more/Makefile.am has to actually know where it is in the source
> tree. It needs lines like this:
>
> prog_SOURCES
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, NightStrike wrote:
If you include src/more/Makefile.am into src/Makefile.am (a perfectly
valid thing to do), you will be unpleasantly surprised that
src/more/Makefile.am has to actually know where it is in the source
tree. It needs lines like this:
This is something I comp
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I am looking for a good example of a project with non-recursive Make
> that is using Automake, that is not trivial. I would like to convert my
> project, log4cplus, to non-recursive Make style, if it is possible. Any
> recommendations
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Václav Zeman wrote:
Hi.
I am looking for a good example of a project with non-recursive Make
that is using Automake, that is not trivial. I would like to convert my
project, log4cplus, to non-recursive Make style, if it is possible. Any
recommendations?
I am not sure if i
On 11/17/2012 11:36 AM, Vincent Torri wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I am looking for a good example of a project with non-recursive Make
>> that is using Automake, that is not trivial. I would like to convert my
>> project, log4cplus, to non-recursive
On 11/17/2012 11:13 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I am looking for a good example of a project with non-recursive Make
> that is using Automake, that is not trivial. I would like to convert my
> project, log4cplus, to non-recursive Make style, if it is possible. Any
> recommendations?
>
GNU C
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I am looking for a good example of a project with non-recursive Make
> that is using Automake, that is not trivial. I would like to convert my
> project, log4cplus, to non-recursive Make style, if it is possible. Any
> recommendations
12 matches
Mail list logo
