Paul Brook wrote:
> > I have been thinking I should put the generated .c and .h files into
> > both EXTRA_DIST and MAINTAINERCLEANFILES.
>
> Putting the files into BUILT_SOURCES should do what you want. This includes
> them in the distribution, and removes them when you do "make
> maintainer-cle
> > "make install" clutils is installing it's generated config.h, which has
> ^
> Don't do that.
Meaning that none of my headers can #inlude "config.h"? That seems
ludicrous to me.
> You shouldn't install config.h: they are not meant
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 10:06 am, Bob Proulx wrote:
> I am autoconfiscating a moderately large legacy project. A previously
> existing methodology in the project is to create a large number of .c
> and .h files by generating them with a script from a template. I have
> created custom rules to
Hello Bob,
What I usually do for generated source files is set the generated files in
the sources as I would any other and add a rule to generate them if need
be - and add the original files to EXTRA_DIST.
This will leave them there on `make clean` and distribute them as well as
the sources' s
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Dale E Martin wrote:
> Am I not getting some fundamental concept of the intention of config.h
> files?
Yep - see below.
> Here's my problem; I've got several projects that depend on each other;
> several libraries that depend on each other in an orderly fashion. All of
> them
Hello.
Jonah Graham wrote:
> Sorry, I should have been more clear about my question. You are correct the
> generated site.exp has illegal TCL in it. I believe I am following the
> instructions in the automake manual properly for setting DEJATOOL to a list
> of names. But of course something else m
I am autoconfiscating a moderately large legacy project. A previously
existing methodology in the project is to create a large number of .c
and .h files by generating them with a script from a template. I have
created custom rules to do this and all builds fine. I originally put
the generated fi
Hi Alexandre!
I noticed recently that there are two definitions of bin_PROGRAMS
in coreutils' src/Makefile.in. One that's identical to the original
in src/Makefile.am, and another, better one, that follows most of
the rules copied from Makefile.am.
Is this intentional?
That doesn't seem like a
