Re: [AD] library dependencies...

[Jon Rafkind <workmin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 06:38:58 +0100
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Weird.  Could you upload a compressed version of config.log somewhere?

It is attached.

> > It would be much simpler to change the linking of X extensions by
> > editing Makefile.am instead of makefile.in
> 
> Why?
> 
> > (btw, many unix people refer to makefile's with a capital M ).
> 
> Both are recognized automatically by GNU make, so this doesn't really
> matter.
> 

The only good reason I can supply to using Makefile as opposed to
makefile is that the auto tools, automake, produces Makefile, not
makefile. Most other unix projects that use the auto tools will
eventually produce Makefile and thats what people know to look for.
Theres nothing wrong with it and if you dont want to change it I wont
harp about it anymore.

> > Basically Im wondering where did makefile.in come from and can we
> > switch to makefile.am?
> 
> Why?
> 

In my experience, Makefile.am is much easier to make changes to than
Makefile.in. Makefile.am contains all the files you want compiled and a
few variables where you can set which libraries to link in, as opposed
to Makefile.in where you have to specify all of the rules as well. In my
project, which is of comparable size to Allegro, Makefile.am is 296
lines while Makefile.in is 925 lines. 

I get the feeling that I will have to come up with Makefile.am and prove
that is better. Although I hesitate to do this, becuase im not all that
great at the automake tools, I will make something that hopefully
someone can improve upon later. 

Basically you are doing automake's job yourself. I see that you are
using autoconf to generate configure, so why not use automake to
generate Makefile.in?

later--,
jon

Attachment: config.log.gz
Description: Binary data