On 12-10-2007 15:11:34 +0200, Stefan Manegold wrote:
Obviously, having .mx.in files in the CVS sources does not make much sense, at least not in combination with source distributions (tarballs).
...
Not that "obvious" --- well, maybe a short recap of the build process helps:
1) @...@ placeholdes in .in files are replace by configure. 2) .mx files are extracted/expanded by Mx when compiling from CVS sources. 3) tarballs are supposed to be compiled w/o Mx, hence, they contain the Mx-extracted/-expanded files ("obviously" including the "hard-wired" @...@ replacements as done by the configure of that preceeded the building of the source tarball).
I recall that .in.mx didn't work out well for some reason. I'll try that out if/once I have time for it.