Hello Юрий. On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Юрий Пухальский wrote: > So i put it all together. > > If i have a Makefile like this: > ----------------------------- > SUFFIXES = .pc > > .pc.lo: > cp $(srcdir)/$*.pc $(builddir)/$*.c > $(LTCOMPILE) -c $(builddir)/$*.c > rm -f $(builddir)/$*.c > > noinst_PROGRAMS = 1 2 > > 1_SOURCES = 1.pc > > db_src = 1.pc > 2_SOURCES = dummy.c > 2_LDADD = $(db_src:.pc=.lo) > ----------------------------- > 1 is not built: > -------------------------------- > devfe:~/tmp/test>make > /bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -o 1 > libtool: link: gcc -g -O2 -o 1 > gcc: no input files > make: *** [1] Error 1 > -------------------------------- > > If i make a rule .pc.c, then i have problem on HP-UX. > > I'd say the first approach is legitimate - i make whatever rule i > want, i use .pc in SOURCES, and automake should take care of > everything else, like it's stated in the doc? > Second approach is ok too - for i don't see any limitation on > transitive rules in standard. > > On the other hand, putting explicit dependencies in case of makes like > that on HP-UX could be done in automake. It's cruddy to do it > manually... > > Can You comment on this? > > PS. If one can use a decent make, there is no need for automake:))) > Just a quick note: you might want to take a look at automake bug#7670: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=7670> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2010-12/msg00034.html> which is closely related to yours.
(BTW, these two bug reports are so similar that they should probably be merged). Regards, Stefano
