On 04/05/2012 03:55 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > > I am glad to see that you too are taking an interest in non-recursive make. > I've always liked how bison switched to non-recursive make, and recently > converted cppi to do the same (the final hold-out there is po/, since its > Makefile.in.in is automatically generated). > > Did you consider leaving doc-related Makefile.am parts in say, > doc/local.mk, which could then be included from the top-level > Makefile.am, and similarly for lib/ and m4/? > Yes, I thought about that, but in the end I find such a separation somewhat artificial and confusing. In addition, keeping all rules and variables defined in a single Makefile makes it easier to spot code duplication and devise possible refactoring.
> I find that to be more maintainable in that it keeps the > rules in the same directory as the associated files, and the > top-level Makefile.am does not become quite so large. > I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this; in fact, I find your suggested setup less maintainable, since, as I've hinted above, it entails what looks to me as an artificial separation -- artificial because make does not allow a real incapsulation/modularity anyway, so it's better be "honest" and use a monolithic Makefile right away. Do you still think my patch is a worthwhile move even in light of this disagreement, or do you think it's better to keep the status quo? Regards, Stefano
