>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Fitzsimmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...] Thomas> One specifc problem I noticed is that automake is Thomas> generating three explicit rules for each target. For Thomas> example, for one .java file, these rules are generated: [...] Thomas> I would only expect rules for .lo files, since we are Thomas> generating libtool libraries. Getting rid of the other Thomas> targets would cut out *a lot* of the bulk. Indeed! I think we can construct cases that will break if any of the .o or .lo rules are left out, for instance bin_PROGRAMS = foo foo_SOURCES = a.c b.c foo_LDADD = @MOREFOO@ lib_LTLIBRARIES = libbar.la libbar_la_SOURCES = 1.c 2.c libbar_la_LIBADD = @MOREBAR@ now think about @MOREFOO@ being substituted into 1.o or 2.o, and @MOREBAR@ being replaced by a.la or b.la... However it seems fair to require that the above snippet be rewritten as bin_PROGRAMS = foo foo_SOURCES = a.c b.c foo_LDADD = @MOREFOO@ EXTRA_foo_SOURCES = 1.c 2.c lib_LTLIBRARIES = libbar.la libbar_la_SOURCES = 1.c 2.c libbar_la_LDADD = @MOREBAR@ EXTRA_libbar_la_SOURCES = a.c b.c like the manual says (oh well, I hope it says so). And in this second example it is clear which rules Automake needs to output. Furthermore, generally it does not work to compile both the .o and .lo objects of a source file (in the last example Automake is expected to warn that these files are being built both with and without Libtool), so it sounds safe to remove the rules which are not used. -- Alexandre Duret-Lutz