On Sep 23, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>> Is there a reason to not have it as an .am? I don't really care other than uniformity, I think -- if there's just *one* Makefile that's different, it's one more thing that has to be remembered, etc.
>
> The easiest way to make it a .am would be to add this directory to
> SUBDIRS but use rules names that are not recognized by automake (so that
> "all" does nothing). It's probably already the case (current rules are
> "missing" and "useless", with a common dependency called "prepare"). If
> you're confident that those will never conflict with automake, I can
> make this a Makefile.am and we're done.
Just because you have a Makefile.am (and therefore generated Makefile.in / Makefile), you don't have to list that dir in SUBDIRS. So "make all" will never traverse down there, etc. If you include it in DIST_SUBDIRS, it'll be included in the tarball (which is necessary if you generate the Makefile[.in]), but the other usual "make" targets don't have to go in there.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}