You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> on 2005/02/10 18:17:20 UTC

Re: svn commit: r153273 - httpd/httpd/trunk/Makefile.in

--On Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:38 PM +0000 jorton@apache.org wrote:

> Author: jorton
> Date: Thu Feb 10 08:38:47 2005
> New Revision: 153273
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=153273
> Log:
> * Makefile.in: Use buildmark.o not .lo since it was COMPILEd
> not LT_COMPILEd.

I'm wondering if buildmark should be LT_COMPILEd instead.

What do you think?  -- justin

Re: svn commit: r153273 - httpd/httpd/trunk/Makefile.in

Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:17:20AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:38 PM +0000 jorton@apache.org wrote:
> 
> >Author: jorton
> >Date: Thu Feb 10 08:38:47 2005
> >New Revision: 153273
> >
> >URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=153273
> >Log:
> >* Makefile.in: Use buildmark.o not .lo since it was COMPILEd
> >not LT_COMPILEd.
> 
> I'm wondering if buildmark should be LT_COMPILEd instead.
> 
> What do you think?  -- justin

I thought exactly that, then I found that LT_COMPILE could only be used
in an implicit rule since it uses $< and $@, so that's a no-go.

I don't think that using a .o directly on a libtool link line poses any
problems, so it should be OK like this.  Very nice to have the thing
rebuilt only when necessary now!

joe