> "Olaf" == olafBuddenhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That's too bad. You must not have run into the various bugs with the
>> old approach.
Olaf> What kind of bugs? And why is the new approach better in this
Olaf> regard?
Read the history:
http://sources.redhat.com/automake/depe
> "adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
adl> Personally, I'd prefer that Automake generates Makefiles that
adl> shows *every* calls. This would make debuging (at any level) and
adl> bug reporting easier.
There's always a tension here. People argue vehemently in both
dir
Hi,
> Olaf> (I fail to see any advantage in the new system
>
> That's too bad. You must not have run into the various bugs with the
> old approach.
What kind of bugs? And why is the new approach better in this regard?
> Olaf> while the clobbering of the make output is a considerable Olaf>
> p
>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Olaf" == <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Olaf> while the clobbering of the make output is a considerable
Olaf> problem -- it's hardly possible to see what is beeing done or to
Olaf> find compiler messages among all the garbage
>>>>> "Olaf" == <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Olaf> Is there some way to use the old dependency system with recent
Olaf> versions of Automake?
Nope.
Olaf> (I fail to see any advantage in the new system
That's too bad. You must not have run into
Hi,
Is there some way to use the old dependency system with recent versions
of Automake? (I fail to see any advantage in the new system, while the
clobbering of the make output is a considerable problem -- it's hardly
possible to see what is beeing done or to find compiler messages among
al
