Re: Interesting automake bug

[Peter Poulsen <peter_poulsen@stofanet.dk>]

Jan Ekholm wrote:
  > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Chris Purnell wrote:
  >
  >
  >>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.
  >
  >
  > No, not anymore. I fixed all those and committed them some hours 
ago. The
  > current sources have no mention of headers without .hh anymore. (except
  > one place, see below)
  >
  >
  >>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.
  >
  >
  > Ah, yes, that one should *definitely* not be there. I've been staring at
  > that Makefile.am for propably hours today, and I didn't notice it.
  > Removing it removed the last thing that went wrong.
  >
  > Now it seems to work, at least I can edit a file and do an incremental
  > build without problems.
  >
  > Chris, thanks a lot for the patient help. I guess I can be a PITA when I
  > get frustrated...
  >
  > Time for an initial release, maybe someone can benefit from my piece of
  > crap.
  >
Yep! I have been reading with interest as I have had a lot of trouble
with automake to. I was wondering if you have som links about automake
(beside the manual of course)?

yours
Peter