Nadav Har'El wrote: > He also describes a situation where "make" runs "configure". That's just > silly. Nobody does that, and it doesn't even make sense (running configure > would overwrite the Makefile you're now using - what's the point in that?). > I haven't read the actual article, but the symptoms you describe sound like "automake". Automake will create dependencies between the meta-build files (i.e. - Makefile.am, configure.in etc.) and the actual Makefile. When it is out of date, it will regenerate all of them using rerunning automake, autoconf and configure. There is an option to turn it off, but that is the default behavior.
Now, whether that is good or bad, that's a different story altogether. My personal opinion is that it is an interesting feature to have while you are developing the product, but a harmful one to ship it with. > If these are the types of arguments he makes against autoconf, you better > ignore this article... > The author does seem to confuse "autoconf" with "automake". > Or perhaps > some other tool (automake?) does this - but not autoconf. > Shachar P.s. It seems that either the list setup is broken, or you have placed the list in BCC. Either way, "reply-to-all" did not include the list. -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
