|
From: | Bruce Dubbs |
Subject: | Re: autogen.sh warnings |
Date: | Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:57:08 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.16) Gecko/20080722 SeaMonkey/1.1.11 |
Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 09:50:47PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:Robert Millan wrote:What is exactly the problem?Using automake without Makefile.am is non-standard and not provided for within automake. The only thing we use automake for is to copy config.{guess,sub} to the root of the root of the source.Also, building as one large monolithic Makefile with includes built via scripts is probably not optimal from a comprehension point of view.That's a long-standing problem, with no easy solution.
That's for sure.
But as for automake, I don't think it'd be a bad idea to migrate Makefile.in to Makefile.am. We already have kludges in Makefile.in (e.g. docs/version.texi generation) which would completely disappear if this file was automake'd. Any takers?
I thought about it, but I really don't have much experience writing for autotools. AFAICT, it would require getting rid of all the ruby and gen*.sh scripts and generally be very invasive.
As you know, GRUB supports many OSes, file systems, and BIOSes. The nature of the process is closer to an operating system than a standard program. The more I look at it, the more impressed I am that you guys get as much as you do working.
I think it would take many iterations to get an autotooled build system right.
-- Bruce
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |