On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 04:06:21PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > * Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070204 15:43]: > > Hi, > > > > would anybody want to migrate flashrom to Autoconf+Automake or do you > > have any objections? > > It works without. Why would you want to add that much maintenance > overhead?
Dunno, it was just an idea ;) It's not _that_ much overhead usually, though. For LinuxBIOS itself Autoconf is obviously not a good idea, but for flashrom (a userland application) this can be considered, IMHO. > > On the one hand it might be a bit overkill, but on the other hand we > > could improve/ease portability quite a bit, I guess. It also > > "streamlines" the build process to what people are used to: > > Portability? What issues in particular? For example the recent /dev/mem issue. The 'configure' script can check for tons of stuff, compilers, paths, command line options for some toolchain programs, header files, libraries (libpci, libz for flashrom), and lots more. Sure, all of that can be done with plain Makefiles and a bit of hacking, but if we need _lots_ of such workarounds/checks Autoconf might be the better option. Think about porting flashrom to *BSD, Mac OS, etc. I'm pretty sure more issues will arise over time. But yeah, I was expecting resistance against this, lots of people seem to dislike the Autotools ;) That's why I first asked before wasting time preparing patches. Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
