tags 12495 - moreinfo thanks On 09/27/2012 09:53 PM, Hib Eris wrote: > Hi all, > > On 09/24/2012 11:20 AM, Hib Eris wrote: >> On 2012-09-27 10:38 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> [...] >>> Thanks for digging out all these details. However, I still don't understand >>> why you consider the current Automake behaviour as a bug. It seems to me >>> it's >>> not in contrast with the documentation, which reads: >>> >>> AC_CONFIG_HEADERS: >>> Automake will generate rules to rebuild these headers. Older versions >>> of Automake required the use of AM_CONFIG_HEADER (see Macros); this is >>> no longer the case. As with AC_CONFIG_FILES (see Requirements), >>> parts >>> of the specification using shell variables will be ignored as far as >>> cleaning, distributing, and rebuilding is concerned. > > IMHO the statement that automake will generate rules to rebuild these > headers is suggesting that automake does more than it actually can. > Automake does not really know how the headers should be rebuild, thus > it assumes it can do so by running autoheader which as far as I > understand always creates only a config.h.in file. > And the autoconf manual indeed reads:
The autoheader program ... searches for the *first* invocation of AC_CONFIG_HEADERS in configure sources to determine the name of the template. If the first call of AC_CONFIG_HEADERS specifies more than one input file name, autoheader uses the first one. Now I understand your objections, and I agree that the current Automake behaviour is a bug (albeit a minor one). I'll commit a fix in the next days. Thanks, Stefanno