* Allan Caffee wrote on Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:43:02AM CET: > Although I must admit I'm not sure what he means by > > > [...] this shouldn't matter for read-only trees iff your > > > dependencies are set up correctly [...] > I'm not really sure how else you could have generated.c on the source > tree and not break dist-check, but then I'm probably missing something > obvious.
With distcheck, the rule for generated.c should never be invoked in the first place, as the distributed file should be up to date wrt. its prerequisites. > Also, I don't want to split hairs here but isn't it less portable to use > $@ in a non-suffix rule? No. Using $< is unportable outside of suffix rules, but $@ may be used everywhere. Cheers, Ralf