On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 06:17:47PM +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Tuesday 21 December 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 01:55:39PM CET: > > > On Sunday 19 December 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:19:40PM CET: > > > > > xmandir = $(mandir) # we want info files installed in $(mandir) > > > > > because ... > > > > > xman_TEXINFOS = foo.texi > > > > > > > > (And the inline comment is of course not ok ;-) > > > > > > (Maybe it's time to deprecate them too in the manual ...) > > > > I don't see how they were ever not problematic. Well, at least given > > the autoconf.texi general warnings about comments in makefiles. > > > Ah, but AFAIK, make comments are problematic only in makefile *rules*, > not in variable definitions: > VAR = foo bar # a probably portable comment > tgt:; touch $@ # a bad unportable commen > > Try also to search: > ^[^\t#].*=.*\s# file:^Makefile\.am$ > with google code search (not many entries, luckily, but still). > > Regards, > Stefano
Actually it is not always ok. FreeBSD's make chokes on it in some
instances:
VAR = foo # this comment is ok
VAR = foo \
# this is also ok
VAR = foo \
# this is ok \
# <- Unassociated shell command
Also, it will break $(am__append*) variables, but that is not relevant in
this case.
--
Pippijn van Steenhoven
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
