[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Newbie Question

From: Fausto Sanchez
Subject: Re: Newbie Question
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 10:37:20 -0700

I'm still convinced that autoconf/automake is the way to go. You were right using
the suffix manipulation instead of writing a macro worked. Thank you.

Another questions, how do I propagate a variable from the top level onto all Makefiles. In other words I want to be able to say propagate the -Werror flag down to all makefiles?

Is there an FAQ for the autotools?


At 10:00 PM 7/26/2001 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>> "Fausto" == Fausto Sanchez <address@hidden> writes:

Fausto> Thanks for the reply. It isn't that I want to do this. Some
Fausto> folks within the group said that if we are going to use the
Fausto> automake/autoconf model, we should be able to do this kind of
Fausto> make rules.

I'm guessing that automake is an unpopular choice in your group for
some reason.  If having c -> assembly -> object rules is a real
requirement for your project, then automake might not be the best

Automake is designed to assume a particular sort of project.  In
particular, at core it assumes a "traditional" GNU-style development.
It has been extended, and given some flexibility, but there are
definitely jobs for which it is not suited.

Fausto> I can post the taget examples that they proposed, but I didn't
Fausto> want to waste too much bandwidth. I'm reading on writing my
Fausto> own Macros, but I'm having a hard time grasping the syntax.

I assume from the use of the word `macro' that you are trying to write
autoconf code.  In this case that isn't what you need.  Instead you
need to write suffix rules.  Any `make' manual can explain how these
are written.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]