This is the mail archive of the automake@gnu.org mailing list for the automake project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Alternate automake output?

From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at syncretize dot net>
To: "William Robertson" <wkr at cs dot ucsb dot edu>,"Tom Tromey" <tromey at redhat dot com>
Cc: <automake at gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:04:28 +1000
Subject: Re: Alternate automake output?
References: <20020724043303.GB30853@ip68-6-112-152.sb.sd.cox.net> <87heip3dne.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20020724055740.GA32596@ip68-6-112-152.sb.sd.cox.net>

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Robertson" <wkr@cs.ucsb.edu>
To: "Tom Tromey" <tromey@redhat.com>

> I know this is a hack, but could automake play along with this, and
> would this work?  Alternatively, is there a cleaner way to achieve
this
> goal?

I'd just use subdir_objects and include the full paths to the module
code - much as per the style of 'recursive make considered harmful'.

Rob

References:
- Alternate automake output?
  - From: William Robertson
- Re: Alternate automake output?
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Alternate automake output?
  - From: William Robertson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]