Re: extending automake

[Bob Rossi]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 01:22:29PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 05:51:35PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Brian Dessent wrote on Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 04:45:54PM CEST:
> > > It would be equally difficult as in the case with MULTITARGETS and
> > > foo_{TARGETS,SOURCES,COMMAND}, no?
> > 
> > Well, the first step in exploring this further would be somebody writing
> > out how suitable generated rules should look like: if you can then
> > factor it from the input that you're getting, that's already half of the
> > work done.
> > 
> > In any case, I won't be working on this right now due to time
> > constraints, sorry.
> 
> Unfortunately, both of you are talking over my head. I don't have all
> that much experience with make. However, I've worked on a lot of open
> source projects, and all of them do this common task.
> 
> They generate files during build time, and modify BUILT_SOURCES...
> 
> In fact, think of the bison or flex extension (adding .y or .l files to 
> the _SOURCES variable). That is just another use of this general 
> functionality that I'm talking about. In some sense, it would be like me
> adding foo.xml to the _SOURCES, but telling automake how to turn that
> into a .c file. I want to run foo.py, whereas automake runs bison or
> flex.
> 
> I'm sure that if this was implemented, a LOT of projects would use it.
> So, is there something I can do to help implement it, with my little
> experience writing make file rules?

Ping, whatever happened to this idea? You guys think it's stupid?

Bob Rossi