Stefano Lattarini wrote: > 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.
With a small project it makes little difference, I guess, but read on... >> 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. I'd say it's more about locality and modularity than "honesty" ;-) Think of a project with many sub-directories or with a few directories that are two or more levels deep. With your approach, any file renaming, addition or deletion anywhere leads to a change in the top-level Makefile.am, making that file a potential bottleneck and a more-likely source of conflicts. Keeping the file name lists near the actual files is more scalable because it reduces that cost/risk. IMHO, automake should set a good example on this front: an example that would be useful to more projects. > 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? Yes, but I haven't given up.
