Re: Newbie Question

[Fausto Sanchez <fas at andiamo dot com>]

I'm still convinced that autoconf/automake is the way to go. You were right 
using
the suffix manipulation instead of writing a macro worked. Thank you.

Another questions, how do I propagate a variable from the top level onto 
all Makefiles.
In other words I want to be able to say propagate the -Werror flag down to 
all makefiles?

Is there an FAQ for the autotools?

Thanks,
fausto..

At 10:00 PM 7/26/2001 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Fausto" == Fausto Sanchez <fas@andiamo.com> writes:
>
>Fausto> Thanks for the reply. It isn't that I want to do this. Some
>Fausto> folks within the group said that if we are going to use the
>Fausto> automake/autoconf model, we should be able to do this kind of
>Fausto> make rules.
>
>I'm guessing that automake is an unpopular choice in your group for
>some reason.  If having c -> assembly -> object rules is a real
>requirement for your project, then automake might not be the best
>choice.
>
>Automake is designed to assume a particular sort of project.  In
>particular, at core it assumes a "traditional" GNU-style development.
>It has been extended, and given some flexibility, but there are
>definitely jobs for which it is not suited.
>
>Fausto> I can post the taget examples that they proposed, but I didn't
>Fausto> want to waste too much bandwidth. I'm reading on writing my
>Fausto> own Macros, but I'm having a hard time grasping the syntax.
>
>I assume from the use of the word `macro' that you are trying to write
>autoconf code.  In this case that isn't what you need.  Instead you
>need to write suffix rules.  Any `make' manual can explain how these
>are written.
>
>Tom