On 11/15/2011 09:22 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Hi Chuck, Eric, > > Thanks both for the review! > > On 15 Nov 2011, at 23:07, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On 11/15/2011 7:53 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >> tests/mdemo/Makefile.am >>> -## use @LIBLTDL@ because some broken makes do not accept macros in targets >>> +## use $(LIBLTDL) because some broken makes do not accept macros in targets >> >> This comment now makes zero sense. If you are now forcing the following >> rule: >> >> +$(LIBLTDL): $(top_distdir)/libtool \ >> >> then (a) remove the comment completely, and (b) document somewhere that >> we now require non-broken make which DOES allow $(macros) in targets.
> > + - At some point we were supporting some undetermined `broken make', as > + evidenced by having carried the following code since 2003: > + > + ## use @LIBLTDL@ because some broken makes do not accept macros in > + ## targets, we can only do this because our LIBLTDL does not contain > + ## $(top_builddir) > + @LIBLTDL@: $(top_distdir)/libtool \ > + ... By the way, such make implementations (that don't work with $(macros) in targets) exist: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2008-12/msg00027.html At least IRIX and HP-UX vendor make fail to handle macros in the target. > + > + However, we've also had *many* cases of macros in targets for just as > + long, so most likely we never fully supported makes allegedly broken > + in this way. As of this release, we explicitly no longer support > + make implementations that do not accept macros in targets. I suppose we can resuscitate make portability if anyone complains loudly enough. We may want to also ask on the automake list if this is still a real limitation, or whether automake has given up on worrying about this as well. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
