From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans-Christian Egtvedt Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:58:43 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/1] openssl: convert to Makefile.autotools.in and bump version to 0.9.8g In-Reply-To: <1218605958.12416.6.camel@localhost> References: <1218542611-21908-1-git-send-email-hans-christian.egtvedt@atmel.com> <20080813032408.GA1773@cloud.net.au> <1218605958.12416.6.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <20080911135843.2c66d713@atmel.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:39:18 +0200 Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: > 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? > > > > 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? > 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? -- Best regards, Hans-Christian Egtvedt