On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 09:46 +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > I've just subscribed to this list, and not all messages in this thread > appear in the web archives,
The SF mail archives are extremely slow. I would use http://marc.info/?l=net-snmp-coders&r=1&w=2 to get up to to speed on the list. > so forgive me if I'm answering a little out of context. :-) > Thomas Anders wrote: > > Magnus Fromreide wrote: > > > >> I think the compiler-choice patch is what you are asking for? > >> For the rest of you, do you think it is a good thing? > >> > > > > What problems does it promise to solve by just dropping support for > > --with-{cc,cflags,ld,ldflags,ar,libs}? > > > The problem with the duplicate configuration methods is that things > break, and it's not clear why. For example (given at the start of this > thread), for a simple project compiled with autoconf, merely passing > "--host=arm-unknown-linux-unknown" will automatically cause the > resulting makefile to search for "arm-unknown-linux-unknown-gcc" as the > compiler tool, "arm-unknown-linux-unknown-ldd" as the linker tool, > "arm-unknown-linux-unknown-strip" as the strip tool etc. We know that > this is not the case for net-snmp, and we're not sure why. The explicit > (read - redundant) compiler setting is a likely culprit. I did manage to convince my test setup to do a crossbuild from i386-... to i686-... and everything seemed to work for me but I did not do any verification beyond making sure that it built. With this said I think your idea of going towards automake is a much better solution. > I've started looking at what it would take to move the project over to > automake. Awesome. > From the preliminary work I've done it seems that automake > will reduce the build system source code size by about 80%(1), plus > solve many (if not all) of the problems mentioned in my original email. Even more promising. > ... > > 1 - I've only started to work on it, and it obviously is going to take a > while. So far, I haven't seen anything that cannot fit, neatly, into the > models suggested by automake, but I cannot claim to know the net-snmp > build system well enough to be sure. In any case, nuances will have to > be checked by someone better versed with what net-snmp needs to do than > me. I'll send a patch when there is something to show. The hard part as I see it is the autodependency handling between net-snmp modules using header file meta-commands. If you search for the string "config_require" in the configure script that woud take you right into the, as I understand it, most problematic part. /MF (I do like automake as well) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
