On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 04:39:01PM -0500, al davis wrote: > The 3-part makefile is something I came up with before autotools > existed, and I still believe it is the best way to go. It has > gotten messed up on its own over the years and needs to go back > to its roots. > > The 3 parts: > Make1 is this project. > Make2 is configuration. > Make3 is boiler plate, always the same.
i do not understand the three makefile approach. but we had that. it sounds fun. lets go on with a few simple aspects. currently Make2 includes rules, something about .cc.o:. is this considered configuration? what about a "Makefile"? is this supposed to just include the other ones? should configure create it? > Originally I would hand edit Make2, and often I still prefer to > do that. so Make2 is not there before configure has run, and (optionally) edited by hand. and somehow included if you type "make"... what will a configure run do to your hand crafted Make2? > The way I want to use autotools is to generate Make2, and use > its version of Make3. usually, configure creates the makefiles. is this what you mean? where does Make3 come from? > As it stands, it actually sort of does that, but then scrambles > it all up into a big mess, and scatters it all over the project > root directory. the amount of user serviceable parts is small, which i think is most important. the amount of mess... well i don't care, as long as it works. > The removal was because I couldn't figure out how to deal with > plugins properly, and it was easy with plain old make. we had that. i simply don't get what you mean. what does *not* work for you with the current autotools branch? is it just the missing Make2? dissecting/renaming some files will not immediately add functionality. cheers felix _______________________________________________ Gnucap-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucap-devel
