From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:32:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20080616133201.GG18857@shareable.org> References: <1209577322.25560.402.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080614112656.GX13599@pengutronix.de> <20080616113946.GD18857@shareable.org> <200806161406.40063.neundorf@eit.uni-kl.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200806161406.40063.neundorf@eit.uni-kl.de> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Alexander Neundorf Cc: Linux Embedded Maillist Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Monday 16 June 2008 13:39:46 you wrote: > ... > > > > If you're going to rewrite Autotools using GNU Make, why not ask if > > > > another tool would be better, perhaps a tool specially designed for > > > > the job? > > > > > > Go ahead. > > > > The first part of going ahead is to brainstorm and find ideas and > > likely interest... It's too big (as you rightly note) to simply sit > > down and do it by oneself in isolation. > > You are not seriously talking about writing yet another buildsystem? > With autotools, cmake, scons, ant, (b)jam, bitbake, makeng, > etc. there should be enough available. No, I'm talking about improving Autotools to handle some things better than they do now. Passing the high hurdles required to become part of Autotools - especially compatibility - is part of the goal. -- Jamie