Re: Recursive targets for the user

[Stefano Lattarini]

At Monday 02 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > 
> > But would it still recurse in that directory's subdirectories?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > If yes,
> > everything's fine with your approach (even if we could then IMHO
> > find a better naming than `*-am' for recusrive rules, but this
> > is a minor point).
> 
> Why, what's wrong with just documenting *-am?
Wrong? Nothing!  I was just suggesting that maybe we could find a 
slighty better name, since it's not that clear that `foo-am' and `foo' 
are related for make recursion reasons...  But as I said, this is a 
minor point.  Moreover, since the internal `*-am' rules have been 
there for a long long time, they should be deprecated anyway before 
being removed, so that deferring this hypotetical renaming to some 
point in the future doesn't create additonal problems.

> > Otherwise, if I wanted a recursive target `foo' descending in
> > say, bar/tests/ and baz/quux/tests/,  it would still be
> > necessary for me to add dummy `foo-am' (or `foo'?) targets to
> > bar/Makefile.am, baz/Makefile.am and baz/quux/Makefile.am, and a
> > dummy dependency like `foo-am: foo' to bar/tests/Makefile.am and
> > baz/quux/tests/Makefile.am.
> 
> No; the idea is that these dummies are added by automake already.
Good!

Regards,
   Stefano