> >> >> I'm not too much of an autotool expert, but I'm actually wondering > >> >> why this autogen.sh script is still used. Why can't the regular > >> >> Makefile do the same, by simply adding the required dependencies? > >> >> For example, why not having in the Makefile something like:
> >> | Alas, there can be something like Makefile.auto which would be fixed > >> | and not auto-generated. Then autogen.sh could just be > >> | > >> | #!/bin/sh > >> | exec make -f Makefile.auto > >> autogen script is only needed for CVS users, it is used to create the > >> configure script. > | s/distribution/CVS tree/ ;-) > | > | Still, the question is whether it wouldn't make sense to move autogen.sh > | into a Makefile.auto? (no, lazy me hasn't looked at autogen.sh in any > | detail...) > So instead of once script we would have two? > One to invoke "make -f Makefile.auto" and the actual Makefile.auto... > I fail to see a single benefit... Maybe it's a thin-ice benefit :-), but still maybe it would be cleaner if we let make do all the dumb dependency checking (about the only thing make is good for ;-). Cheers, Kuba Ober
