Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are apparently triggered by the use of $(LIBOBJS) in coreutils'
> lib/Makefile.am. Although it is a bit uncommon to combine pieces of
> gnulib and different pieces from outside gnulib in the same library, I
> think gnulib-tool should support this.
>
>
Jim Meyering wrote:
> It is inaccurate and uncharitable to call that automake work
> short-sighted. The problem is that development on that front seems to
> have stalled. Since that part of automake is incomplete, if you don't
> know the history, I can see how you would think it short-sighted.
O
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> It sounds like the recent trend to remove uses of AC_LIBSOURCE
>> (in favor of listing source file names in each module-file Files: section)
>> is the reason for at least some of my missing dependencies.
>
> The removal of AC_LIBSOURC
Jim Meyering wrote:
> It sounds like the recent trend to remove uses of AC_LIBSOURCE
> (in favor of listing source file names in each module-file Files: section)
> is the reason for at least some of my missing dependencies.
The removal of AC_LIBSOURCE was indeed a major change - for the better
(mo
Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> but there
> >> is a bug (haven't investigated at all yet) whereby most of the generated
> >> dependencies (lib/.deps/*.Po files) are not included into the Makefile.
I agree with Ralf that it's most likely tied to the issue I reported two
days ago: In summary (thanks Ralf f
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Jim,
>
> * Jim Meyering wrote on Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 03:53:42PM CET:
>>
>> I did not run "make clean", but did ensure that config.h was updated.
>> That alone should have caused all "old" .o files to be rebuilt, but there
>> is a bug (haven't inv
