Re: $(EXEEXT) not properly appended to @program@ in bin_PROGRAMS

[Fred Cox]

Thanks for the quick response.  See my followups below.

Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:

> > > > "Fred" == Fred Cox <address@hidden> writes:
> > > >        
>
> Fred> I'm using automake 1.7.3, the latest stable release of automake.
>
> Fred> Our generated program's name is different, depending on
> Fred> configuration switches.
>
> Fred> For platforms which don't have an extension to signify that something
> Fred> is executable, this idiom seems to work for me:
>
> Fred> EXTRA_PROGRAMS=daemon
>
> Fred> bin_PROGRAMS=normal @DAEMON_NAME@
>
> Fred> However, under Win32/MinGW, the make fails.  After some digging I
> Fred> determined that the second bin_PROGRAMS in the Makefile.in is this:
>
> Fred> bin_PROGRAMS = normal$(EXEEXT) @DAEMON_NAME@
>
> Fred> rather than:
>
> Fred> bin_PROGRAMS = normal$(EXEEXT) @address@hidden(EXEEXT)
>
> Fred> as I would expect.
>
> Automake cannot know that @DAEMON_NAME@ will always containe
> *one* program name.  Consider @MAYBE_A_PROGRAM_NAME@ or
> @MANY_PROGRAM_NAMES@: in both cases appending $(EXEEXT) would be
> wrong.
>
> Fred> I've attached my boiled down configure.ac and Makefile.am, along with
> Fred> the generated Makefile.in.
>
> Fred> Is there a workaround (besides hand editing the Makefile.in) or a
> Fred> quick bugfix?
>
> Sure! Please see the `Conditional compilation of programs'
> section of the manual.  Let me know if it can be improved.
>  
Perhaps I'm being slow this morning, but 9.1.4 says I should put my 
possible program names into EXTRA_PROGRAMS, which I did, then have 
configure substitute in the names of the programs, which I did with 
@address@hidden  Is there another way that configure will do this, which 
will not confuse automake?

It doesn't point out that $(EXEEXT) won't be appended, nor give a hint 
about what's the appropriate way to do what's wanted for platforms that 
require an extension.

Thanks,

Fred Cox