Re: [PATCH 5/7] add _HEADERS primaries to Makefile.am snippets for installable headers

[Gary V. Vaughan]

On 13 Oct 2010, at 03:55, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Originally, I added noinst_HEADERS to the module definition files,
>> and then changed them all to nobase_nodist_include_HEADERS and
>> EXTRA_HEADERS in gnulib-tool if the gnulib library is installable.
>> However, I think it is much more flexible to add the
>> 'nodist_include_HEADERS' or 'nobase_nodist_include_HEADERS' and
>> 'EXTRA_HEADERS' as appropriate to the circumstances in each module
>> file
> 
> I agree that declaring them with ..._include_HEADERS is clearer than
> with noinst_HEADERS.
> 
> But why bother using nodist_include_HEADERS in some cases and
> nobase_nodist_include_HEADERS in others? I would use
> nobase_nodist_include_HEADERS everywhere, for consistency. It avoids a
> pitfall when someone is writing a new module, say, 'sys_mman', based on
> 'unistd'.

For pedantic correctness only; using nobase_nodist_include_HEADERS
consistently makes more sense in light of what you say -- and actually
reduces the number of lines added to gnulib-tool and generated
Makefile.am too.

> And what's the role or effect of EXTRA_HEADERS? Automake does not do
> anything with .h files that it doesn't do with .png files. gnulib-tool
> already synthesizes EXTRA_DIST augmentations for files that are to be
> distributed.

Automake complains if you add a computed (possibly empty) header name
to xxx_include_HEADERS, without a matching EXTRA_HEADERS containing the
static name.  I added it purely to silence automake, but would be happy
to remove it if that can be done without unnecessary automake invocation
noise.

Cheers,
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (address@hidden)

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part