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
