Re: Non-recursive make & maintenance issue

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Robert Collins wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 02:10, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > > Hmm, I'd prefer to do it via the include mechanism - see my crude, but
> > > effective updated proof of concept - posted here a minute ago.
> >
> > I like your include approach.  It helps convert existing recursive
> > builds into non-recursive builds with minimum pain.  However, there
> > are sufficient reasons to write only one Makefile (e.g. source tree is
> > treated as "read only", or personal preference) that both mechanisms
> > should be supported.
>
> I'm not arguing against the single-big-file-method... but I am curious:
> how does a 'read only' source tree affect this? If there is a
> Makefile.am in it that you want to use without alteration, you can just
> SUBDIRS= x y z   #not subdir
> DIST_SUBDIRS=x y z subdir
> subdir_include subdir/Makefile.am

By 'read only', I mean that there is an existing source tree with no
Makefile.am's (perhaps it uses some other build system) and you are
not allowed to (or shouldn't) update it.  Since Automake supports
subdirectories, the Makefile.am doesn't need to reside in the source
tree and it doesn't care if files which would normally conflict with
Automake already exist in the tree.

That was the case for my latest Automake expedition.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen