Re: problem with subdir-objects and not found .Plo files when migrating to 1.14

[John Calcote]

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against your approach. And the automake
maintainers are certainly not purposely trying to make things more
difficult for you. I merely suggest that you may run into more issues down
the road simply because supporting your setup is not a current goal of the
tool.

Indeed, I've found these guys to be quite amenable to adding new build
paradigms to automake's repertoire.

I'm glad you found a solution that works.
On Sep 1, 2013 3:36 PM, "Sergey 'Jin' Bostandzhyan" <address@hidden>
wrote:

> John,
>
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 03:11:11PM -0600, John Calcote wrote:
> > I'm curious as to why it's important to you that build products not land
> in the
> > source tree, especially in light of the fact that you're clearly aware of
> > automake's support for out-of-tree builds. Out-of-tree builds exist to
> solve
> > the very problem you're trying so hard to fix.
>
> well, consider the following: your project has several source
> subdirectories,
> some of them with two levels. Even with out of tree builts you end up
> having the produced libraries and executables in each of those
> subdirectories
> respectively, or in other words: all over the place. Sure, you can do a
> make install to get all things together, but that's not always practical
> during development.
>
> My setup dumps all the compiled stuff into one directoriy, which makes it
> really easy to find, it's just more convenient.
>
> Honestly, if you have a choice, do you really prefer having the binaries
> all
> in different places in your tree?
>
> Also, I don't have to go out of the project dir when I want to "make"
> which I would have to do if I configured out of tree.
>
> What's wrong with that approach? People who use my setup seem to like it,
> as I said, it's convenience, no matter if used with in or out of tree
> builds.
>
> > Be aware that you're kicking against the pricks (as the old saying goes).
> > Sooner or later you'll run into other issues with new versions of
> automake that
> > may not have such simple resolutions.
>
> I wonder why the authors of automake would try to restrict different and
> actually valid usage scenarios? I've been using this setup for over 5 years
> in different projects, I'd be really disappointed if I had to switch to a
> setup that is much more inconvenient for me.
>
> Please don't become another Gnome 3 by enforcing weird restrictions upon
> your
> users ;) Or is there really a hard technical limitation that would make
> setups as above impossible? I can't believe that... so I hope I will have
> the freedom of choice, also with newer versions of automake.
>
> Kind regards,
> Jin
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 2013 11:53 AM, "Sergey Jin' Bostandzhyan" <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     OK, never mind, problem solved. It seems that $(top_srcdir) simply
> did not
> >     expand anymore in _SOURCES. Keeping my structure with the
> build/Makefile.am
> >     but replacing $(top_srcdir) with '..' did the trick, it works
> >     like a charm now, including in and out of tree builds.
> >
> >     No more warnings, no more not found .Po files, and I get my binaries
> and
> >     libraries nicely in the build directory without polluting the source
> tree.
> >
> >     Kind regards,
> >     Jin
> >
> >     On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 06:45:32PM +0200, Sergey 'Jin' Bostandzhyan
> wrote:
> >     > Hi,
> >     >
> >     > thanks for your reply, some more questions though:
> >     >
> >     > On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 03:08:37PM +0100, Diego Elio Petten  wrote:
> >     > >     Is it possible to keep the logic with the in-tree build
> directory
> >     with
> >     > >     automake 1.14? I did try to move all the logic from build/
> >     Makefile.am into
> >     > >     the top level Makefile.am and removing build/Makefile.am
> >     completely, but
> >     > >     it does not help - .Plo files are not found.
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > > I'd say it's a very bad idea to use that build/Makefile.am.
> >     >
> >     > Could you please elaborate? I'd be interested in the technical
> details on
> >     why
> >     > it is a bad idea?
> >     >
> >     > > Move the includes on the top-level Makefile.am, and get rid of $
> >     (top_srcdir) on
> >     > > all the _SOURCES declaration and it should work fine.
> >     >
> >     > It does compile now, and it does dump all the .o and .lo and what
> not
> >     > in the same directory as the sources - very ugly. This is exactly
> what I
> >     was
> >     > avoiding with the separate build directory and it worked just
> perfectly
> >     > until automake 1.14 came along.
> >     >
> >     > Is there any way to tell 1.14 to place the object files into some
> >     dedicated
> >     > directory without doing an actual "out of tree" build, or in other
> words,
> >     > can I achieve the same setup that I had on 1.14 somehow?
> >     >
> >     > Kind regards,
> >     > Jin
> >     >
> >
> >
>