[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Building things a little differently?

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Building things a little differently?
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:37:07 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

* John Calcote wrote on Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:57:12PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Automake has no builtin rules for moc files.  So you need to take this
> > up with whoever provides those rules.  FWIW, in one package this is what
> > we use:
> I was wondering how difficult it would be to modify Automake such that
> true extensions could be written.

Well, since almost all content of is copied verbatim into
the output file, you can extend using plain make code.  I understand
that's not what you're after.

> For example, Automake has built-in
> support for Libtool's LTLIBRARIES primitive. Wouldn't it be cool to
> support a type of primary extension file, that would allow one to define
> a new type of primary? This file would provide the rules that a new
> primary would support, lists that it would update - like the distro file
> list, etc.
> Just a thought. Would this be particularly difficult?

Doing this would be much more work.  At least I don't see how it could
be done easily.


reply via email to

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