Hello Patrick, please don't top-post, thank you.
* Patrick M. Rutkowski wrote on Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:55:28PM CEST: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:17 PM, NightStrike wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >> * Patrick Rutkowski wrote on Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 03:26:52AM CEST: > >>> As the collection of tests grows it's going to get annoying to have to > >>> add an _LDADD entry for every single one separately. Is it possible to > >>> add an _LDADD for all check_PROGRAMS items in one blow? > >> > >> All *_PROGRAMS that don't have an *_LDADD override use plain LDADD: > >> > >> LDADD = -lquark > > > > Is there any _PROGRAM that isn't a check_PROGRAM? > > Good question. At this very moment, no, there aren't any other programs. > > But there might potentially be other programs in the future. And I'd > still really love to know if there's less blanket-cover way to do it > than the global LDADD. At that point you can either specify all check programs in a separate Makefile.am, say tests/Makefile.am, and set LDADD differently in that, or you can set the <prog>_LDADD for one or both of the sets. Currently, check_PROGRAMS, bin_PROGRAMS, and noinst_PROGRAMS only differ in *when* their rules are triggered, not in how they are built when they are built. I really would like to keep it that way, because everything else is fairly insane wrt. implementation (cf. lib_LTLIBRARIES vs. pkglib_LTLIBRARIES which need '-rpath <target_dir>' passed), esp. when it comes to things like conditionals. Hope that helps. Cheers, Ralf