Re: [automake] Dependency question with _LDADD

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* 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 Makefile.am files
requires adding an AC_CONFIG_FILES stanza plus a SUBDIRS entry
(which is what allows to mix automake-generated Makefile.in'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.

Cheers,
Ralf