* Julien Lecomte wrote on Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 05:20:50PM CET: > On 19/02/2006 11:50, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >Going back to your original question: what about the much simpler > >approach I suggested, which would avoid all of these issues? > The suggestion rules out the fact that it may be legit to have a file > called 'configure' or 'configure.gnu' in the building directory. > Although I wouldn't recommend having such a file, I think it shouldn't > be arbitrarily ruled out. That's dangerous. If you use Automake, or your however-created Makefile uses the VPATH feature, chances are that you have rules that will depend on `configure' or other generated files. Having files with the same name in corresponding directories of both source and build tree will cause subtle issues with different `make' implementations. So it should be avoided. I don't think Autoconf needs to take care of the rare, hypothetical case where this would actually be both safe and useful. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
