[ let's drop the autoconf list ] Hi Stepan,
* Stepan Kasal wrote on Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:21:23PM CET: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:29:30PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > [ Cc:ing bug-automake for an documentation request ] > > > > * Jules Colding wrote on Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:10:54PM CET: > > [...] > > > This unfortunately has a side effect as it creates a target in my > > > Makefile named "BuildRequires:" requiring the target "package_2". > > this is a bug in Automake. That may well be, but... > > _AM_SUBST_NOTMAKE([RPM_BUILDREQUIRES]) > > > > I think Automake should publicize this interface; more precisely, I > > think Automake should implement an alias AM_SUBST_NOTMAKE which does the > > same thing, document it, and keep the underscored name as undocumented > > alias. > > I do not think it is justified to publish this macro. > > I do not see any use for the macro, besides working around this > Automake bug. ... I beg to disagree here. I may simply not want to have some macro to be defined in Makefiles, but have its variable substituted elsewhere (in other config files). The awkward semantics of macro propagation alone: <http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Macros-and-Submakes.html> justify this additional liberty for the developer IMO. What would be your argument for limiting developer's possibilities? Allowing the package developer to override Automake's "magic" has always been a valuable goal. Cheers, Ralf