Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are already existing tools out there
Read what I wrote, including references. Reading the archives, I
already learned your opinion. You argued at length that autoconf and
automake are better. That wasn't my question.
> the necessary resources to build a module hierarchy
<http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html>.
Peter Miller argues cogently why recursive make subverts dependency
checks. His solution is GNU-make dependent, which subverts portability.
Probably on purpose, Dan's method solves the same problem yet is portable.
> It's quite convenient to package standalone modules as individual
> subdirectory
I already know that. I also know how common it is to link against the
wrong version of a library. "rm config.cache" (your suggestion) and/or
"make distclean" (Russ Allbery's) are not the right way to ensure
correct dependencies. Make, a triumph of AI, was designed for that
purpose already.
Len.
