[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [bug-gnulib] using AC_LIBSOURCES: complementing the `Files:' section

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: [bug-gnulib] using AC_LIBSOURCES: complementing the `Files:' section
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:57:20 +0100

Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> wrote:
> I have read the node (automake)LIBOBJS and I understand now that using
> AC_LIBSOURCES is the way which Alexandre recommends.  And I learned to
> trust him.  So there is no doubt gnulib has to go this way.
> The advantage of AC_LIBSOURCES is that many gnulib modules will have no
> Makefile.am fragments, which saves typing (pasting) for people who don't
> use gnulib-tool.
> The disadvantage is that Automake is too magical here.  We have the rule
> that only files listed in the Makefile.am get distributed, and this is
> yet another exception to the rule...

Which/whose rule is that?
Maybe you're thinking of Makefile.in?

I think the `magic' of automake is just fine.
I'd rather not have to have to remember to add new files
in two or three places if Automake can do it for me.

As I recall, one of the primary goals of automake
has always been to simplify and shorten Makefile.am files.
There are many examples of files that are distributed
yet not listed in Makefile.am.

reply via email to

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