I posted without fully reading and understanding the macros involved. I know that sometimes I have had "configure" do things for me, and after getting burned a few times I discovered what "steps" needed to be moved to config.status. I don't know offhand if the steps described will happen in configure or config.status; my intent was to make sure this distinction was noted. H -- > > The problem with doing these things in configure is that one must rerun > > configure to regenerate the file. > > Sometimes it is better do produce these things in config.status. > > Doesn't autoconf/automake generate makefile dependencies for the output > files it configures? When I have maintainer-mode turned off, the make > rules automatically rerun config.status when an input file has changed. > > e.g. cd .. && config.status src/foo.h > > In response to Ralf's suggestion: > AC_CONFIG_FILES([foo.h.tmp:foo.h.in], > dnl ... move-if-change foo.h.tmp foo.h > ) > > This will work except that there will be no foo.h: foo.h.tmp dependency > automatically generated to auto-reconf, which would be nice. It's not > difficult to add the rule in the Makefile.am manually, but it's just one > more thing to remember (and explain to someone reading through my files). > I'll play around some more... > > > David Fang _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
