Re: More problems with `make -n' in automake-generated rules.

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 09:50:08PM CET:
> > On Thursday 04 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:48:16PM CET:
> > > > Hello Ralf.  Again, just a couple of nits w.r.t. the test cases...
> > > 
> > > Thanks; but I didn't mean to actually commit the second patch
> > > (just in case that wasn't clear).
> 
> > I didn't get that, sorry.  Anyway, why you don't want to commit this second
> > patch?
> 
> Causes a slowdown without gain for the user.
> 
> > While its usefulness is admittedly limited, being a little bit more
> > correct (even if only theoretically) wouldn't hurt IMHO.
> 
> But then there is no argument to not also fix the other configure.am
> rules (which also have problems in even more obscure and hard-to-use
> cases).  I gave up trying to write exposers for them.
OK, agreed.  Fixing this would IMHO be very low priority anyway.  (And
to be honest, I've *never* expected `make -n' to really make a dry-run
if the Makefile is out-of-date, so I *personally* don't even see this
limitation as a problem -- which probably explains why I don't have
strong feelings on this matter).

Regards,
   Stefano