Re: Building things a little differently?
* John Calcote wrote on Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 09:57:12PM CEST: Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Automake has no builtin rules for moc files. So you need to take this up with whoever provides those rules. FWIW, in one package this is what we use: I was wondering how difficult it would be to modify Automake such that true extensions could be written. Well, since almost all content of Makefile.am is copied verbatim into the output file, you can extend using plain make code. I understand that's not what you're after. For example, Automake has built-in support for Libtool's LTLIBRARIES primitive. Wouldn't it be cool to support a type of primary extension file, that would allow one to define a new type of primary? This file would provide the rules that a new primary would support, lists that it would update - like the distro file list, etc. Just a thought. Would this be particularly difficult? Doing this would be much more work. At least I don't see how it could be done easily. Cheers, Ralf
Re: Building things a little differently?
Hello Bobby, * Bobby Dill wrote on Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:55:11AM CEST: When I build a library there is a hidden directory called .libs generated. Yes. That is done by libtool, because it may produce several files with the same name, and uses this private subdirectory as a means to avoid file name collisions. Is there a way to tell automake to put certain file in certain directories as its building. For example, to put moc processed files in a directory called .moc. Automake has no builtin rules for moc files. So you need to take this up with whoever provides those rules. FWIW, in one package this is what we use: SUFFIXES = .moc .h .h.moc: $(MOC) -i $ -o $@ (with $(MOC) being set by the BNV_HAVE_QT macro from the Autoconf Macro Archive). I should note that I find your requirement a bit unusual, and it is not easily formulated in portable make (as opposed to GNU make) rules. If you aim to put generated files away from sources files, maybe it is sufficient for you to merely use a VPATH build (separate build tree)? Cheers, Ralf
Re: Building things a little differently?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ralf, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Automake has no builtin rules for moc files. So you need to take this up with whoever provides those rules. FWIW, in one package this is what we use: I was wondering how difficult it would be to modify Automake such that true extensions could be written. For example, Automake has built-in support for Libtool's LTLIBRARIES primitive. Wouldn't it be cool to support a type of primary extension file, that would allow one to define a new type of primary? This file would provide the rules that a new primary would support, lists that it would update - like the distro file list, etc. Just a thought. Would this be particularly difficult? Regards, John -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIRFCYdcgqmRY/OH8RArfmAKCbSTr1HthlH7G9LW84xa2TF+ANVwCfT+Bt ucIi0QH9wOB7s/xxGivcB90= =kNzv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Building things a little differently?
When I build a library there is a hidden directory called .libs generated. Is there a way to tell automake to put certain file in certain directories as its building. For example, to put moc processed files in a directory called .moc.
