[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autogen.sh warnings
From: |
Colin Watson |
Subject: |
Re: autogen.sh warnings |
Date: |
Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:16:09 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 01:01:28AM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> Why can't Makefile.in moved to Makefile.am and then just let automake
> mostly copy Makefile.am to Makefile.in ? (I'm automake newbie), just an idea
I wouldn't recommend it. The syntax looks similar, but there are some
slight differences, and Automake has its own ideas of what rules and
variables you are and aren't allowed to override. Besides, there's quite
a lot of stuff that Automake will output even with an entirely blank
Makefile.am; I doubt it would be very much fun to try to merge that into
the current Makefile.in without essentially doing a full port to
Automake.
(Now if only I had time to actually do such a port ...)
--
Colin Watson address@hidden
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, (continued)
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko, 2009/12/07
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Bruce Dubbs, 2009/12/07
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko, 2009/12/07
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Bruce Dubbs, 2009/12/07
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Colin Watson, 2009/12/07
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko, 2009/12/07
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Bruce Dubbs, 2009/12/07
- Re: autogen.sh warnings,
Colin Watson <=
- Building system (Re: autogen.sh warnings), Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko, 2009/12/07
- Re: Building system (Re: autogen.sh warnings), Bruce Dubbs, 2009/12/07
- Re: autogen.sh warnings, Felix Zielcke, 2009/12/08