Re: Augment instead of replace maude_DEPENDENCIES

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hello Miles,

* Miles Bader wrote on Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 03:36:50AM CET:
> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
> >   - For programs and libraries, automake now detects
> > EXTRA_foo_DEPENDENCIES and
> >     adds them to the normal list of dependencies, but without
> > overwriting the
> >     foo_DEPENDENCIES variable, which is normally computed by automake.
> 
> Hmm, is there a convention about whether to use names like
> "EXTRA_foo_DEPENDENCIES" vs. "foo_EXTRA_DEPENDENCIES"?
> 
> I would have guessed the latter, as it seems more consistent (and a bit
> prettier)...

There is precedence for the former naming with EXTRA_foo_SOURCES:

     For each primary, there is one additional variable named by
  prepending `EXTRA_' to the primary name.  This variable is used to list
  objects that may or may not be built, depending on what `configure'
  decides.  [...]

That said, as this isn't in a released version yet there is time to fix
things if need be.  I just figured the above was reason enough to go
with the current name.

Cheers,
Ralf