On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:17:45 Jie Zhang wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> > On Monday, June 13, 2011 17:22:27 Jie Zhang wrote: >> >> * Automake changes some variables used in the rules in the patch. We >> >> can just take a look at the generated rules in Makefile.in to see what >> >> a new rule looks like and modify accordingly. >> > >> > this is more than many people can handle >> >> This kind of argument makes no sense at all. I, or someone, or someone >> in future, really cannot handle some code in UrJTAG, should we remove >> those code? > > my experience across many many many packages in the open source world is that > people who cannot fathom autotools simply tweak things until it starts > working. ive seen a bit of this in urjtag as well. > > that means if you arent here, the code you propose will simply get slapped > around until people stop complaining/filing bugs. > > i believe that the code i propose has a much lower chance of that occurring. > I'm trying to understand how your patch fixed this issue. I don't think it's easier to understand than my patch. It seems that yours depends on this observation: Automake does not substitute the variable in target when processing the user defined rule. Is this a documented feature?
Regards, Jie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ UrJTAG-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/urjtag-development
