Paul Smith wrote:
> I recognize there are some situations where make snippets are really
> the best way, but it seems like they're being used even in places where
> configure.ac would be just as simple. I think it would be a good
> "statement of policy" for gnulib that if there are equivalent
On Sun, 2019-09-08 at 16:40 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Admittedly GNU Make is a special case, since you want to build it
> without having 'make'. And if it's just a few Gnulib modules and
> they're not doing anything fancy, perhaps we can modify the modules
> to use 'configure' substitutions
Hi Paul,
> This is a real issue for me because I've always provided a shell
> script, build.sh, which can be used to bootstrap an instance of make if
> the user doesn't already have one.
The information about bootstrapping [1][2] gives a different picture
of bootstrapping. For many packages,
On 9/8/19 2:06 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
Why can't we add
these headers as AC_CONFIG_FILES() and allow them to be generated by
the configure script, instead of requiring makefile rules to do it?
Makefile rules can do things that an Autoconf substitition can't, or at least
can't do easily. For
I'm looking at allowing GNU make to use more gnulib facilities, but
I've run into a serious problem.
It seems that a lot of gnulib modules rely on makefile rules added to
Makefile.in to construct files, rather than using traditional configure
replacement .in file conversions.
This is a real
