Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On poniedziałek 26 sierpień 2002 11:15 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> 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:
>> |
>> | Because there's no Makefile in the distribution (it's a file generated by
>> | the autotools' generated configure :-), and it would be *bad* to have it
>> | distributed just so that autotools could work.
>> |
>> | 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...
--
Lgb
