Hi, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hi Iain, thanks for the answer (and sorry for the delay).
No worries. Plus, I also tend to delay. > [Iain Nicol wrote:] >> One thing which did strike me: EXTRA_ might not be the best prefix >> for YACC_HEADERS. If you do a ``make dist'' on a C Bison project >> then of course zardoz.h is included in the dist tarball, which AFAICT >> is GNU Coding Standards encouraged behaviour---presumably because >> installing Bison used to be more difficult that it is these days. It >> would be consistent for the YACC_HEADERS to also end up also in the >> dist. > I agree with what you say, but I don't see how this constitutes a > counter-argument to the use of EXTRA_ as a prefix for YACC_HEADERS. It probably isn't a counter argument. I'm thinking out loud, for better or worse... What I /was/ thinking is, because we may want these headers in the dist, maybe the ``dist_'' prefix should be part of the variable name---at least optionally. I wasn't sure if there is an EXTRA_dist_ construction, which was what I was trying to get at before. Either way, given that SOURCES is ``SOURCES'' and not ``dist_SOURCES'', it's not clear that the name of YACC_HEADERS should have to have ``dist_'' in it--even if the files automatically end up in the dist. On that note, /do/ you think the headers should end up in the dist automatically, or do you think the user should have to do this: EXTRA_DIST += $(EXTRA_zardoz_YACC_HEADERS) ? > Update: OTOH, quoting from the section "The Uniform Naming Scheme" of > the automake manual: > For each primary, there is one additional variable named by > prepending `EXTRA_' to the primary name. This variable is used to > list objects that may or may not be built, depending on what > configure decides.' > This doesn't fit very well with the situation we are talking about, so > `EXTRA_foo_YACC_HEADERS' is not a great name after all ... > Suggestions on how to change it are welcome. I'll throw my only idea out there, with little idea of its suitability: BUILT_ as a prefix, to make BUILT_YACC_HEADERS analogous to BUILT_SOURCES. But FWIW I can't see BUILT_ in the "Uniform Naming Scheme" manual section. And then the manual says this about BUILT_SOURCES: BUILT_SOURCES is actually a bit of a misnomer, as any file which must be created early in the build process can be listed in this variable. Moreover, all built sources do not necessarily have to be listed in BUILT_SOURCES. So maybe not. > Which patch are you referring to exactly? I saw a patch attached to this bug, bug #7648. (It's not a fix for the main issue.) I think it was committed here: <http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/automake.git/commit/?h=ylwrap-refactor&id=06efe9c467768a25c374b5d47dc8f1412874352d> It's less the patch and more the log. Before I read the log I hadn't had obvious "aha" that Automake could be made to simultaneously match either EXTRA_foo_YACC_HEADERS or EXTRA_foo_dist_YACC_HEADERS (or whatever), well, if need be. I really am thinking out loud, you see ;). Regards, Iain
