On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:17:20AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:38 PM +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Author: jorton > >Date: Thu Feb 10 08:38:47 2005 > >New Revision: 153273 > > > >URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=153273 > >Log: > >* Makefile.in: Use buildmark.o not .lo since it was COMPILEd > >not LT_COMPILEd. > > I'm wondering if buildmark should be LT_COMPILEd instead. > > What do you think? -- justin
I thought exactly that, then I found that LT_COMPILE could only be used in an implicit rule since it uses $< and $@, so that's a no-go. I don't think that using a .o directly on a libtool link line poses any problems, so it should be OK like this. Very nice to have the thing rebuilt only when necessary now! joe
