Re: autogen.sh warnings

[Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs@gmail.com>]

Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 09:50:47PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Robert Millan wrote:
>>> What is exactly the problem?  
>> Using automake without Makefile.am is non-standard and not provided for  
>> within automake.  The only thing we use automake for is to copy  
>> config.{guess,sub} to the root of the root of the source.
>>
>> Also, building as one large monolithic Makefile with includes built via  
>> scripts is probably not optimal from a comprehension point of view.
> 
> That's a long-standing problem, with no easy solution. 

That's for sure.

> But as for automake,
> I don't think it'd be a bad idea to migrate Makefile.in to Makefile.am.  We
> already have kludges in Makefile.in (e.g. docs/version.texi generation) which
> would completely disappear if this file was automake'd.
> 
> Any takers?

I thought about it, but I really don't have much experience writing for 
autotools.  AFAICT, it would require getting rid of all the ruby and 
gen*.sh scripts and generally be very invasive.

As you know, GRUB supports many OSes, file systems, and BIOSes.  The 
nature of the process is closer to an operating system than a standard 
program.  The more I look at it, the more impressed I am that you guys 
get as much as you do working.

I think it would take many iterations to get an autotooled build system 
right.

   -- Bruce