On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 06:30, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Nowadays we could probably implement pattern rules purely in automake.
> Back in the old days we didn't have the machinery to allow this.
> Automake itself was too primitive. But now it would be more possible,
> if someone were motivated. Maybe th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 06 May 2002 07:29, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Christoph" == <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Christoph> Yes and no. Take the example of QT's moc files. They have
> Christoph> to be generated from .h files, if the class defined in the
> Chri
> "Alex" == Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alex> Suffix rules should be portable to all makes, its pattern rules
Alex> that aren't available everywhere.
Nowadays we could probably implement pattern rules purely in automake.
Back in the old days we didn't have the machinery to allow
> "Christoph" == <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christoph> Yes and no. Take the example of QT's moc files. They have
Christoph> to be generated from .h files, if the class defined in the
Christoph> .h file does mention a Q_OBJECT macro. I would love to have
Christoph> something in my Makefiles
alex> I think the recommended way is to add suffix rules to produce the built
alex> sources, not edit the Makefile.ins.
But is this really portable ? I looked at automake 1.4 info pages, and it tells
something about GNU make:
> Handling new file extensions
>
>
> I
