Hi, > >> "awkward fit" because you are using Autoconf in an awkward way. > >> Using a tool an an un-intened way. > > > > It's really not that "unintended" IMHO. After all, Autoconf is all > > about generating a Makefile from a template (Automake-generated or > > handwritten) adjusted with some configuration options (partially > > user-supplied, partially auto-checked). I'm really doing nothing > > else. The only untypical part is that I want to use a *different* > > template depending on one fundamental option (target system). > > The problem with this approach is that you now have two *different* > ways of doing the same thing. This will require both templates to be > updated together, tested after each change on different systems etc.. On the contrary! The approaches for building KGI on microkernel-based and on monolithic system are so absurdly different, that the obvious way probably would be handling them completely independantly. What I am actually doing here, is taking considerable pain trying to unify the system *nevertheless*, as far as only possible. The Automake-generated makefile would be totally meaningless on monolithic systems, as we aren't actually building anything here. Instead, we need a couple of helper targets, for preparing a kernel build etc. This is really completely orthogonal; and using a different template seems to be the only way to use Autoconf also for this case at all. -Olaf- _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
