Florin Iucha writes: > Why is that a requirement? Can that one master makefile call two > other makefiles, one that produces the static library and the other > that produces the shared libary? Or it might be even the same slave > makefile, that is called with different arguments (to insert fpic on > the compiler command line, for instance). Good question. I was thinking I'd build one of the libs and remove the object files and then rebuild them. I added a subdirectory and it looks like that will work. Before I did that I looked at autoconf and automake again. I think there's kind of an impedance mismatch for what I'm working on and those tools. Most of the code I'm working on is in the back tier which users don't have to build. The library and two executables that users are expected to build are all in one directory. (I'm not sure I'll export the new directory I added for the shared library since I'm not sure if anyone besides me wants that.) So I think my need for something like autoconf is small. Probably what I should do is port the makefile to Solaris or another platform and include that new makefile in the distribution. -- Brian Wood Ebenezer Enterprises - so far G-d has helped us. http://webEbenezer.net (651) 251-9384 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20130402/37dc1b2f/attachment.html>