From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hamish Moffatt Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:06:30 +1000 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] openssl: convert to Makefile.autotools.in and bump version to 0.9.8g In-Reply-To: <20080911135843.2c66d713@atmel.com> References: <1218542611-21908-1-git-send-email-hans-christian.egtvedt@atmel.com> <20080813032408.GA1773@cloud.net.au> <1218605958.12416.6.camel@localhost> <20080911135843.2c66d713@atmel.com> Message-ID: <20080911130630.GA29167@cloud.net.au> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 01:58:43PM +0200, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:39:18 +0200 > Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: > > 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? > > No other comments for using Makefile.autotools.in for not autotools > packages? I still find Makefile.autotools.in much smoother than the old > style package.mk. To generalize packages must be a win-win? I guess if it works then it's ok to use it for now. If it breaks in the future we can fix it then. I suppose the OpenSSL developers have deliberately chosen to mimic the autoconf configure interface given how well known it is, so it fits Makefile.autotools.in too. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB