[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [automake] Dependency question with _LDADD

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [automake] Dependency question with _LDADD
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:46:32 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

* Braden McDaniel wrote on Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:45:56PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> * Braden McDaniel wrote on Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:48:45AM CEST:
>>> ... which brings up a question I have: Why doesn't AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR
>>> eliminate the need for setting ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS as such?
>> Hmm.  You typically have one AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR where for example
>> 'aclocal --install' or 'libtoolize --install' will dump macro files.
>> However, you can have several places in the tree where you need to
>> pick up macro files from, with -I paths.
> Fair enough; but most don't have more than one such directory. As a  
> result, having to point the autotools at this directory in more than one  
> place feels redundant.

Yes, agreed.  As does the fact that adding new files
requires adding an AC_CONFIG_FILES stanza plus a SUBDIRS entry
(which is what allows to mix automake-generated's with
others; and creative subdirectory orderings).

> Is there a reason not to give aclocal invocations a -I flag for the  
> AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR? ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS could complement this.

Not sure.  Since this typically is a one-time operation, and not a
hassle that you have to take care of regularly, I'm rather cautious
to add an automatism here, in case someone ends up having a good use
case for AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR without ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS pointing there.


reply via email to

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