> So, let me rephrase the question: what would it take to unify all
> ftconfig.* files into one ftconfig.h.in for all platforms?
Two cases have to be supported.
(1) A call to
make
should run on *all* platforms. In other words, GNU make by itself
had to produce an `ftconfig.h' file from the template.
Ditto for `make devel'.
(2) A call to
./configure
should do what it does now.
If you manage (1), please proceed :-) As Tosihiya-san said: having a
single config file is certainly a good idea.
> This reminds me: do we really need the devel/*.h files or can we
> make something easier using build system hackery? Most of the
> defines can be turned into build system options anyway, a debug
> build would be a simple --enable-debug-build or something that turns
> everything on.
I'm open to any changes under the hood as long as `make devel' works –
without calling `./configure', and doing a static build.
>> On the other hand, it would disable direct compilation from git for
>> non-UNIX platforms, forcing people to first say `make tarball' or
>> something like this to generate the necessary file(s).
>
> Well, you want to invoke some build system anyway, so the build
> system does the heavy lifting for you while building? Why ship
> pre-filled config.hs?
My thinko, see above. If GNU make produces `ftconfig.h', then I don't
object to larger changes :-)
>> If we changed the FreeType build system to native automake, say,
>> then we could have a single `config.h' file. I'm sometimes tempted
>> to do that...
>
> Why not use AC_CONFIG_FILES like in configure.raw?
Because this needs a bourne shell...
Werner
_______________________________________________
Freetype-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
