[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Need help with cleaning up a working GNU Autotools setup

From: Peter T. Breuer
Subject: Re: Need help with cleaning up a working GNU Autotools setup
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:06:45 +0200
User-agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.15 (i686))

In comp.os.linux.development.system Nick Matteo <> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.development.system Sune <> wrote:
>>> I read this in a really nice paper I found after
>>> getting in contact with the gnu guys. The guy who wrote this paper
>>> (when and why VPATH should be used) is a GNU guy and was heavily
>>> involved in implementing GNU make. I could have given you the link, but
>>> I leave it up to you and your neuron...
>> Thanks, but the only paper I know concerning make is something like
>> "recursive make considered dangerous", with which I agree completely.

> Sune is probably referring to , and

Interesting. But that simply lists the load of rubbish that people
occasionally write - I don't agree with the conclusion that because
VPATH is got wrong by most people first off that one should give up and
not use it. It works perfectly for what it is designed for - namely
you cd to the intended object directory and do "make foo.o". End.

As to the difficulty of getting linking right using VPATH - it's not
designed for that. Still, I don't mind doing it with VPATH also.

So I disagree with him on that page.

> a follow-up at .

Here he seens to suggest copying the source over into the build dir. I
don't like that at all, since VPATH works fine! But I did list it as
one of the ways that our OP could go about things! As I said then,
it's an orthogonal question to using autotools what method you decide to
use for the make - once you have decided, you can get autotools to HELP
you build the makefiles, but it can't substitute for you.

>>> Wrong on your part. If you claim that this is _not_ a
>> It isn't.

> Well, it is.  Whether or not it takes advantage of the automake system
> doesn't impact whether or not it is a valid, and it is.

My point was that it's a about the same way "nothing" is a
makefile. I believe you understand what I was saying!


reply via email to

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