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
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
