On Jun 20, 2001, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> With separate Makefile.am's in each directory,
Richard> automake should be able to figure the bar/foo out from
Richard> the directory paths. The user shouldn't have t
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> With separate Makefile.am's in each directory,
Richard> automake should be able to figure the bar/foo out from
Richard> the directory paths. The user shouldn't have to worry
Richard> about what the path to the top-level is
> "adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> The idea would be to read all the Makefile.am
Tom> at once and then generate a single large Makefile.in.
adl> There is something nice about having one Makefile.am in each
adl> subdirectory, it's that it helps to make selfcontai
On Jun 1, 2001, Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard> With separate Makefile.am's in each directory,
Richard> automake should be able to figure the bar/foo out from
Richard> the directory paths. The user shouldn't have to worry
Richard> about what the path to the top-level is
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 08:37:07PM +0100, Richard Boulton wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 02:29:37PM -0400, Eric Siegerman wrote:
> > So what *is* harmful about recursive makes (besides the admitted
> > performance penalty)?
>
> Read "Recursive make considered harmful"
> http://www.pcug.org.au/~
>>> "Richard" == Richard Boulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 11:16:45AM +0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>> There is something nice about having one Makefile.am in each
>> subdirectory, it's that it helps to make selfcontained and
>> reusable modules.
Rich
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 11:16:45AM +0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> There is something nice about having one Makefile.am in each
> subdirectory, it's that it helps to make selfcontained and
> reusable modules.
What is being advocated is that we keep having Makefile.am's in each
separate direc
>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Tom> The idea would be to read all the Makefile.am
Tom> at once and then generate a single large Makefile.in.
Tom> Unfortunately I think this is very hard. We could
Tom> probably do it if we could add additional constraints on
Tom>
>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Richard" == Richard Boulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> You would lose the ability to build only sources in a
Richard> directory and its subdirs while ignoring files they depended
Richard> upon elsewhere in the tree which ar
> "Richard" == Richard Boulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> You would lose the ability to build only sources in a
Richard> directory and its subdirs while ignoring files they depended
Richard> upon elsewhere in the tree which are out of date, but I'd
Richard> consider that a feature r
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 02:29:37PM -0400, Eric Siegerman wrote:
> Wouldn't one lose the ability to remake just a single module, as
> opposed to the entire project?
No: one could easily put (very small) stub makefiles in each directory,
which simply call the top-level makefile to build just the ta
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 10:09:49AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I think right now automake should have enough machinery that you could
> write a single Makefile.am for an entire project. This ought to have
> some performance benefits for the build.
Wouldn't one lose the ability to remake just a si
I think right now automake should have enough machinery that you could
write a single Makefile.am for an entire project. This ought to have
some performance benefits for the build. Has anybody tried this in a
serious way? I'm curious to hear about experiences.
Last night I gave some thought t
13 matches
Mail list logo
