At Monday 02 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > But would it still recurse in that directory's subdirectories? > > Yes. > > > If yes, > > everything's fine with your approach (even if we could then IMHO > > find a better naming than `*-am' for recusrive rules, but this > > is a minor point). > > Why, what's wrong with just documenting *-am? Wrong? Nothing! I was just suggesting that maybe we could find a slighty better name, since it's not that clear that `foo-am' and `foo' are related for make recursion reasons... But as I said, this is a minor point. Moreover, since the internal `*-am' rules have been there for a long long time, they should be deprecated anyway before being removed, so that deferring this hypotetical renaming to some point in the future doesn't create additonal problems.
> > Otherwise, if I wanted a recursive target `foo' descending in > > say, bar/tests/ and baz/quux/tests/, it would still be > > necessary for me to add dummy `foo-am' (or `foo'?) targets to > > bar/Makefile.am, baz/Makefile.am and baz/quux/Makefile.am, and a > > dummy dependency like `foo-am: foo' to bar/tests/Makefile.am and > > baz/quux/tests/Makefile.am. > > No; the idea is that these dummies are added by automake already. Good! Regards, Stefano
