Le 23/09/2011 21:43, Jeff Squyres a écrit : > On Sep 23, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Brice Goglin wrote: > >>> 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. > Just because you have a Makefile.am (and therefore generated Makefile.in / > Makefile), you don't have to list that dir in SUBDIRS. So "make all" will > never traverse down there, etc.
AFAIK configure will not generate Makefile[.in] unless the dir is in SUBDIRS. Otherwise we would have Makefile[.in] generated in tests/embedded (I don't have any). Brice
