[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES
From: |
Ralf Corsepius |
Subject: |
Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:52:28 +0100 |
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 03:31 +0000, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> My POLA is that config.status produces the Makefiles, config.h, and
> maybe other things.
True, but ...
* config.status's primary task is acting as cache for files it _wants_
to generate.
* config.h's (autoheaders) only can change when running configure.
I.e. technically there is no need to generate them from inside of
config.status.
> Having a file that is only produced when configure is run is
> counter-intuitive.
I beg to differ, IMO, it's just being stylish ;)
Ralf
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, (continued)
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Ralf Corsepius, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Harlan Stenn, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Bruce Korb, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Bob Friesenhahn, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Bruce Korb, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Ralf Corsepius, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Harlan Stenn, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES,
Ralf Corsepius <=