On 02/01/2013 04:18 PM, Bert Wesarg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>> Hi Stefano,
>>
>> On 2013-01-27 20:21, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>>> This time with documentation and a NEWS entry. I also fixed the case
>>>> of including something above the current base Makefile.am with a
>>>> relative path, e.g.:
>>>>
>>>> include ../top.mk
>>>>
>>>> That change shaved a couple of more lines. Neat.
>>>>
>>>> I also rebased it, so now it is against master.
>>>>
>>> Thanks, it seems nice and good. I'm doing some testsuite enhancements,
>>> and then I have some proposals for further tweaks, but all of those
>>> should be for follow-up patches. Will you allow me some days to prepare
>>> a follow-up patch series for further discussion?
>>
>> Sure, take your time, I feel like I'm done. For about the fifth
>> time :-) or something like that. Besides, the patch will not be of
>> all that much use to me until it lands in a released version anyway.
>
> while I didn't try the current patch out. I would like to describe in
> short the situation where one of our projects build system is in:
> Sure, we use a non-recursive build. But we use the same sources in one
> package by two sub-configures to build different targets.
>
> Our makefiles which we include in the top-level Makefile.am look like
> this (we name them 'Makefile.inc.am):
>
> src/Makefile.inc.am:
>
> bin_PROGRAM = foo
> foo_SOURCES = ../src/foo.c
>
> and in the top-level Makefile.am:
>
> build-1/Makefile.am:
>
> include ../src/Makefile.inc.am
>
> So, using this patch, we would change the src/Makefile.inc.am to:
>
> bin_PROGRAM = foo
> foo_SOURCES = &{D}&/foo.c
>
> Right?
>
Yes, that should work.
Best regards,
Stefano
