Re: declaring sources ...

[NightStrike]

On 8/16/07, Jason Curl <address@hidden> wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:

> > Why is this not a toggleable option of some sort?  Why force a user
> > into a difficult situation that will end up having a kludgey
> > workaround? (like something that auto-generates the makfile.am,
> > bringing the total layers to what.. 4?  some script > makefile.am >
> > makefile.in > makefile.  )  The justification sounds a little like
> > giving someone a gun but not ever letting him disengage the safety.
> >
> > I understand why using $(wildcard ...) variables is discouraged, as
> > it's not portable.  Having automake generate the source file list
> > according to some regular expression is, however, an *extremely*
> > useful advanced tool.
> >
> I don't think it makes sense to have this feature. I have a bunch of
> source files that are conditionally compiled based on the system it's
> building on. Why would I want to compile these on all systems? I don't
> think it warrants (IMO) to increase the complexity of autoconf by adding
> another feature like this one. Instead of saying what I want in a build
> system, I'd have to change it to what I /don't/ want.
>
> For auditing purposes, I'd rather know precisely what's a part of my build.

An option that can be toggled, or an alternative approach to
specifying source files, is just that -- an alternative, an option.
No one would be forcing the use of wildcards.  It doesn't work for
your project -- great.  But there do exist projects for which it would
have benefits.  That's the purpose of offering options to people.