%% Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> So, IMO, for being useful, you'd either have to extend make to accept >> the *.am-syntax or to reimplement make.
bf> Exactly. The binary 'automake' would be a "plain make" which also bf> understands Automake syntax. bf> If a non-standard tool is required to be on the user's system in order bf> to build software, then it might as well be a tool that does bf> everything. :-) If you're willing to require GNU make then I'm quite confidant you could write automake as nothing more than a suite of GNU make macros and functions. I doubt there would be any need for code changes to GNU make at all. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
