[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: warnings

From: Bruce Dubbs
Subject: Re: warnings
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:57:08 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: 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 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 to  We
already have kludges 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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]