On Monday 31 May 2004 23:28 CET Klaus Heinz wrote:
> as I see it, it is no longer possible to build spamc with 'configure'
> and 'make'. The file version.h must be built and this is done by
> configure.pl which then calls 'configure' (why without the supplied
> options?).
As Sidney already said, in the beginning configure.pl was just a fork
between the autoconf stuff and the more static Windows pre-config.
> I don't quite understand why this is handled differently now. Wasn't it
> a goal to keep spamc with its setup through autoconf separate from the
> Perl-based setup? I dimly remember discussions about even separating
> spamc from spamassassin completely.
More or less. In the first plave the move of the C stuff between spamc/ was
to have less clutter in the other dirs.
I now extended configure.pl to do the version.h stuff because its way easier
to do it in Perl. And Makefile.PL already reads the VERSION information
from the modules for us so we don't have to duplicate code. That of course
makes the build/configure process depend on the existence of the rest of
the SA codebase.
I'm not really pleased with the current solution either, but it's the best
which I could think of for a quick solution. I'm open for suggestions :)
> Would it be acceptable to change configure.pl so that it knows an option
> '--create-version-file'. When executed with this option, configure.pl
> will only create version.h and then quit; 'configure' could then be
> called separately again.
>
> This would make packaging simpler for me.
It should be possible to do a
perl Makefile.PL </dev/null
make spamc/Makefile
cd spamc
./configure --yourstuff
make -C .. spamc/spamc
Not too elegant I must admit :) So what do you exactly need? I guess I could
hack it in...
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
