From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans-Christian Egtvedt Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:39:18 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] openssl: convert to Makefile.autotools.in and bump version to 0.9.8g In-Reply-To: <20080813032408.GA1773@cloud.net.au> References: <1218542611-21908-1-git-send-email-hans-christian.egtvedt@atmel.com> <20080813032408.GA1773@cloud.net.au> Message-ID: <1218605958.12416.6.camel@localhost> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 13:24 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 02:03:31PM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: > > This patch converts building of OpenSSL to use Makefile.autotools.in and bumps > > OpenSSL doesn't use autotools though, so is this a good idea? > > > +$(OPENSSL_TARGET_CONFIGURE): > > + (cd $(OPENSSL_DIR); \ > > + $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_ARGS) \ > > + $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) \ > > + ./Configure \ > > + linux-$(OPENSSL_TARGET_ARCH) \ > > + --prefix=/usr \ > > + --openssldir=/usr/lib/ssl \ > > + threads \ > > + shared \ > > + no-idea \ > > + no-mdc2 \ > > + no-rc5 \ > > + zlib-dynamic \ > > ) > > Once you've overriden the CONFIGURE stage, is there much benefit left in > using Makefile.autotools.in? > The Makefile is smaller now, and IMHO easier to read. Installation of man pages, info pages and header/development works better now. I though the autotools was not purely for autotools stuff, but a way to make every package simpler to read and install in a more general way? -- With kind regards, Hans-Christian Egtvedt, Applications Engineer