References: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2011-05/msg00110.html> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2011-06/msg00193.html>
On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, May 29, 2011 at 04:26:36PM CEST: > > --- a/lib/am/configure.am > > +++ b/lib/am/configure.am > > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ > > ## %MAKEFILE% is updated before considering the am--refresh target. > > The comment up here ^^^ needs to be updated in this particular patch. > > > if %?TOPDIR_P% > > .PHONY: am--refresh > > -am--refresh: > > +am--refresh: %MAKEFILE% > > @: > > endif %?TOPDIR_P% > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:28:50AM CEST: > > On Tuesday 31 May 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: > > > My attempt follows: > > > > > > remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories. > > > With a decent make program, it is possible to rebuild > > > out-of-date autotools-generated files with a simple "make > > > Makefile". Remove the limitation that "make Makefile" has > > > to be issued from the top-level directory with non-GNU > > > make implementations. > > > > > Thanks; this helped me to come up with this other entry, which while > > being unfortunately more complex, is also more precise: > > > > remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories. > > Remove the limitation that, with non-GNU make implementations, > > "make Makefile" has to be issued from the top-level directory > > in order to rebuild autotools-generated files due to an updated > > configure.ac (or to an updated prerequisite thereof). > > > > This is what I'll use if there are no further objections. > > I have an objection: you guys manage to discuss a log entry for half a > dozen mails, yet never address the most interesting question the log > entries throw up: "what is that 'silly' limitation" that non-GNU makes > have here? > Also, you violate the "put the explanation in the code, not > in the log entry" principle, actually falsifying an existing comment in > the code. > You're right about this; a really bad blunder. So here is what I've applied to a proper bug-fixing branch (already merged to maint): diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog index 9c9b256..af2db86 100644 --- a/ChangeLog +++ b/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +2011-07-04 Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com> + + remake: fix outdated comment in configure.am + * lib/am/configure.am: Fix comment falsified by changes in + commit `v1.11-366-gbee9871'. + Suggestion from Ralf Wildenhues. + 2011-05-29 Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com> remake: behave better with non-GNU make in subdirectories diff --git a/lib/am/configure.am b/lib/am/configure.am index d00846a..594ec67 100644 --- a/lib/am/configure.am +++ b/lib/am/configure.am @@ -17,9 +17,10 @@ ## This dummy rule is called from subdirectories whenever one of the -## top-level Makefile's dependencies must be updated. It does not -## need to depend on %MAKEFILE% because GNU make will always make sure -## %MAKEFILE% is updated before considering the am--refresh target. +## top-level Makefile's dependencies must be updated. It does depend +## on %MAKEFILE% for the benefit of non-GNU make implementations (GNU +## make will always make sure %MAKEFILE% is updated before considering +## the am--refresh target anyway). if %?TOPDIR_P% .PHONY: am--refresh am--refresh: %MAKEFILE% Regards, Stefano