> There is an article called "recursive make considered harmful". > According to it, you should have just one Makefile.am in top > level with all the rules (all libs etc). By this, make can show > its strengths best. Often, a Makefile.am "per directory" seems > to be used, but for a new project today this should be avoided. > It just slows things down and leads to unneeded compiler calls. > > I'm sorry, but where on earth did you get this terrible > information? > > A Makefile.am per directory is precisly what should be used, it > doesn't incure any extra compiler calls. It also makes it easy > to build seperate parts of the tree. There is an existing paper about this argument. This is exactly addressed in the automake documentation, and automake supports that single-directory method if you so choose. I can find the reference for you in a few hours. I was not addressing Peter Millers paper, which is an excellent read. What was being addressed was your claim that a Makefile.am per directory should be avoided, which is simply not true. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
