* 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? Cheers, Ralf
