On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 06:07:57PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Bas Wijnen wrote on Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:58:47AM CEST:
> >
> > In one of my projects, I use the nonrecursive approach, but I still have a
> > Makefile.am per directory.
That's also what I had in mind when thinking about switc
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 06:07:57PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Bas,
Hi,
> > There's one major hack in there: automake doesn't support += on things like
> > bin_PROGRAMS, so I had to create temporary variables for it and do
> > bin_PROGRAMS = $(programs).
>
> This sounds awfully like a bug
Hi Bas,
* Bas Wijnen wrote on Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:58:47AM CEST:
>
> In one of my projects, I use the nonrecursive approach, but I still have a
> Makefile.am per directory.
Yes, it's a good idea to group things this way (by using included
Makefile.am snippets)
> Automake obviously isn't buil
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 04:29:29AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Thomas Schwinge wrote on Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:42:28AM CEST:
> >
> > In the old build system we had the very conventient feature that you
> > could `make progb' from the top level build directory and it would
> > automagically
Hi Thomas,
* Thomas Schwinge wrote on Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:42:28AM CEST:
>
> In the old build system we had the very conventient feature that you
> could `make progb' from the top level build directory and it would
> automagically first build the libraries `progb' depends on (as specified
> by
