Re: Expanded rules for scripts

[Pavel Roskin]

Hello, Akim!

> This patch is fine with me.  But really, I'd like to see a comment in
> Makefile.am explaining why we do this, and, more importantly, report
> the precise problem in the documentation.

Here it is, but keep in mind that I'm not really strong in writing
documentation :-(

Not sure if make-stds.texi is "our" file. It's rewritten by "wget-update"

ChangeLog:
        * Makefile.am: Added a comment before rules for scripts.
        * doc/make-stds.texi (Makefile Basics): Mention limitations of
        suffix rules.

____________________________
Index: Makefile.am
--- Makefile.am Wed Dec 13 09:34:13 2000
+++ Makefile.am Wed Dec 13 10:59:20 2000
@@ -124,6 +124,10 @@
        -e 's,@VERSION\@,$(VERSION),g' \
        -e 's,@PACKAGE\@,$(PACKAGE),g'

+# We are using explicit rules to make sure that all the scripts are rebuilt
+# when the version number changes in configure.in. Suffix rules cannot have
+# additional dependencies.
+
 autoconf: $(srcdir)/autoconf.sh $(srcdir)/configure.in
        rm -f autoconf autoconf.tmp
        $(editsh) $(srcdir)/autoconf.sh >autoconf.tmp
Index: doc/make-stds.texi
--- doc/make-stds.texi  Wed Oct  4 08:42:34 2000
+++ doc/make-stds.texi  Wed Dec 13 10:57:12 2000
@@ -62,6 +62,12 @@
 The first line clears out the suffix list, the second introduces all
 suffixes which may be subject to implicit rules in this Makefile.

+Suffix rules cannot have any additional dependencies.  It may be
+tempting to write an explicit rule without commands that would add those
+dependencies.  However, you should not do so, since @sc{bsd} make will
+completely ignore the suffix rule for those targets, even if the
+explicit rule has no commands.
+
 Don't assume that @file{.} is in the path for command execution.  When
 you need to run programs that are a part of your package during the
 make, please make sure that it uses @file{./} if the program is built as
____________________________

Regards,
Pavel Roskin