Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Monday 2008-12-15 08:32, William Pursell wrote: >> Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> >>> third round here of the automake-tranquility patch from me. >>> Updates from previous attempts: >> I've been looking through the archive and haven't >> noticed any followup on this. I don't know if it >> counts for anything but I would certainly like to >> see this incorporated. >> >> Jan, which commit was your patch made against? > > Possibly the 1.10.1 tarball plus ... ah forget it. Here's a redump, > this time with parent specifier (not that git would use it, but > it's helpful for exactly such cases where you just don't remember > what your base is ;)
Thanks for this Jan, it is really nice functionality. I don't know if this is a portability issue, but I think it would be nice to change $< to $? in this section: > + 'am__1verbose_CCLD_1 = @echo " CCLD " $@ "<-" $<;', > + 'am__1verbose_CXX_1 = @echo " CXX " $@ "<-" $<;', > + 'am__1verbose_CXXLD_1 = @echo " CXXLD " $@ "<-" $<;', In the case with lots of dependencies, that might lead to excess verbage, but that's what V=0 is for, right? Or maybe use $? in a V=2 case. Also, for those who like customizability, it might be nice to allow the maintainer to specify a character sequence to use other than "<-" to separate the target from the prereqs. (For example, the radically different "<--"). I sound like I'm complaining already. I don't mean to, since I think this is really nice. I noticed that your patch modifies m4/Makefile.in. Is that correct behavior? I'm still unclear on the merits of putting Makefile.in in the repository at all, but I would think that its content in the repository should be automatically generated rather than patched. -- William Pursell
