Le 23/09/2011 21:33, Jeff Squyres a écrit : > Sorry, I was OTP when I sent that, and not fully focused. > > My concern is that this file must be generated via an AC_CONFIG_FILE > somewhere, right? And therefore it must be included in the tarball, etc.
Yes, and it's included in the tarball (see r3841). > I guess I'm just a little surprised that it's a .in and not a .am. Just > because we have a Makefile.am doesn't mean that "make dist" has to traverse > down there. > > Is there a reason to not have it as an .am? I don't really care other than > uniformity, I think -- if there's just *one* Makefile that's different, it's > one more thing that has to be remembered, etc. The easiest way to make it a .am would be to add this directory to SUBDIRS but use rules names that are not recognized by automake (so that "all" does nothing). It's probably already the case (current rules are "missing" and "useless", with a common dependency called "prepare"). If you're confident that those will never conflict with automake, I can make this a Makefile.am and we're done. Brice
