Re: Need more EXTRA_PROGRAMS variables

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 09:18 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Behdad Esfahbod wrote on Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:13:17AM CEST:
> > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 14:31 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: 
> > 
> > > If you can live with $(EXTRA_PROGRAMS) also
> > > containing the tests, that is.  If not, then I'd like to know why not.
> > 
> > I can.  But as a separate issue, I think allowing things like
> > EXTRA_something_PROGRAMS makes sense.  One thing I love about automake
> > is its flexibility, and hardcoding some feature (automatically adding
> > EXEEXT in this case) to some special variable names but not providing
> > ways for the user to do the same is not consistent IMHO.
> 
> All fair.  Except I simply don't see a use case for this yet, nor do I
> see what `something' should mean in this case.  If you can create a
> sensible use case, let's see how to implement it.  IOW: where do you
> need EXEEXT rewriting for something that is not an optionally built
> program?

Ok, maybe I have a wrong idea of what the committed fix was.  I want to
be able to have something like this work:

============
EXTRA_PROGRAMS = 

DANCE_PROGS = dance1 dance2 dance3
EXTRA_PROGRAMS += $(DANCE_PROGS)
dance: $(DANCE_PROGS)
        ./perform-dance # uses progs dance1, dance2, and dance3
============

Now does automake rewrite DANCE_PROGS to include EXEEXT?  If not, the
dance target doesn't work.

With what I have in mind:

============
EXTRA_DANCE_PROGRAMS = dance1 dance2 dance3
dance: $(EXTRA_DANCE_PROGRAMS)
        ./perform-dance # uses progs dance1, dance2, and dance3
============

It will do. (and since it's a "EXTRA_" var, there is no need for
DANCEdir to be defined).


> Cheers,
> Ralf

Cheers
-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
 Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759