Re: Interesting automake bug

[Chris Purnell <cjp@lost.org.uk>]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:22:57PM +0200, Jan Ekholm wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Chris Purnell wrote:
> 
> >This is the implicit make rule again.  Just as before with your header
> >files.  Make has an implicit rule to make an executable out of a c++
> >source file as well as one to make a ".o" object file.
> 
> I really don't get it. If I have something like this:
> 
> ## programs
> bin_PROGRAMS    = panzers
> 
> panzers_SOURCES = blast.cpp                 \
>                   camera_manipulator.cpp    \
>                   connection.cpp          
>                   ....
> 
> Why would it determine that "connection" is an application? Each of those
> files does have a corresponding .hh file, but they're not even mentioned
> anywhere. Why should their mere existence throw automake out in the
> dark goblin woods?

The building of "connection" was from before you renamed the header file
from "connection" to "connection.hh".  The header files are mentioned
in the #include lines in the .cpp files.

But that is all fixed now.  The remaining problem is the building of
"setup".  Havining a look at your Makefile.am in CVS I see that you
have "setup" with no suffix in panzers_SOURCES.

-- 
Christopher John Purnell  | I thought I'd found a reason to live
http://www.lost.org.uk/   | Just like before when I was a child
--------------------------| Only to find that dreams made of sand
What gods do you pray to? | Would just fall apart and slip through my hands