[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: top-level Makefile required?
|
From: |
Harlan Stenn |
|
Subject: |
Re: top-level Makefile required? |
|
Date: |
Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:20:12 -0400 |
|
User-agent: |
EMH/1.10.0 SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) XEmacs/21.1 (patch 14) (Cuyahoga Valley) (i386--freebsd) |
(Robert, thanks for your responses and attention!)
I understand, and yet the .texi also says:
Note that the directories listed in @code{SUBDIRS} are not required to
contain @file{Makefile.am}s; only @file{Makefile}s (after configuration).
This allows inclusion of libraries from packages which do not use Automake
(such as @code{gettext}).
so there is clearly an intention/awareness of wanting to "play nice" with
other software.
H
--
> On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 10:02, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > Bug, I'd guess.
> >
> > Why does automake/autoconf assume it is "in charge" of the directory
> > structure?
>
> I'll leave this to the core guys to answer. My understanding is that
> thats what automake is designed to handle though..
>
> Rob