Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
As for the config thing, it could work like you proposed, but then I think we might end up rewriting autoconf, which would be a waste of time. I think that if there is autoconf functionality needed, then I think we should use autoconf. I don't think it would be so hard to
yes of course. i am a happy user of autoconf (most of the time at, least) and i don't want to abandon it. i was rather thinking of a generic way how to access a configuration-system (such as autoconf) via the big mother-Makefile.
obviously i have made a typo when grabbing for "configure" in your Makefile and therefore (wrongly) thought that it is never used...
do, but it would take a fair amount of coordination. As for using scons, I am uncomfortable using pre-1.0 software for something as mundane as the build system. Let's keep the build system stable, since
my wording... i personally don't want to switch to SCons (for whatever reasons), but there are devs who use (and maintain) this build-system and those should be able to re-use it. (i remember there was a thread on calling SCons from make - and iirc ideas differed a lot...)
mfg.asdr. IOhannes