[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autogen.sh warnings
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: autogen.sh warnings |
Date: |
Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:33:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
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. 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?
--
Robert Millan
"Be the change you want to see in the world" -- Gandhi
- Re: autogen.sh warnings,
Robert Millan <=