Hi, > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 10:58 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > I do not see any use for the macro, besides working around this > > > Automake bug. > > > > ... I beg to disagree here. I may simply not want to have some macro > > to be defined in Makefiles, but have its variable substituted elsewhere > > (in other config files). The awkward semantics of macro propagation > > alone: > > <http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Macros-and-Submakes.html> > > justify this additional liberty for the developer IMO. > > > > What would be your argument for limiting developer's possibilities? > > Allowing the package developer to override Automake's "magic" has > > always been a valuable goal. Another related question would be: If using _AM_SUBST_NOTMAKE isn't the "officially sanctioned" way of doing what I want to do, then what is the recommended way? Thanks, jules _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
