From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from h-67-102-66-132.snfccasy.covad.net ([67.102.66.132] helo=hheld.com) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1G3HBR-0001LI-K4 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:54:14 -0400 Received: from [206.15.76.194] (HELO RudiDell) by hheld.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.7) with ESMTPS id 831792 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:54:05 -0700 From: "David Byron" To: Subject: autoconf for mtd-utils Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:52:48 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c6ab64$87a7fad0$a134800a@RudiDell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: dbyron@hheld.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In my environment, it would help to have separate build and source directories for mtd-utils. I need a native build for mkfs.jffs2 and a cross-compiled build for flash_eraseall, etc. A few weeks ago it looks like Josh Boyer removed an attempt at a Makefile.am. Is there a general aversion to automake? If I submit a Makefile.in / configure.ac that uses autoconf but not automake, does it have a chance of getting accepted? I'm happy to create a Makefile.am and configure.ac for automake if that's got a better shot. Thanks. -DB