Hi, On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 05:46:59PM -0700, Andrew Morgan wrote: > I'm not pushing the autoconf stuff as hard as others. I had a scheme for > using autoconf: see the Linux-PAM-0-72-autoconf branch on sourceforge: > > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/Linux-PAM/?cvsroot=pam&hideattic=0&only_with_tag=Linux-PAM-0-72-autoconf#dirlist > > which autoconfs the creation of two files in the top level directory, > which get included by every makefile (Make.Rules) and c-files > (pam_aconf.h). This sort of mirrors the defs/* file approach we have at > present and reflects my general bias against having too much automated > source generation, but uses autoconf to do local configuration. I definitely prefer this approach. The reason is that it makes makefiles more readable. At my opinion, makefiles are the face of a project. They should be readable, simple and close to what they really should do as much as possible. > > Steve and David have been advocating a more traditional autoconf route > which turns every Makefile into a Makefile.in and autoconf gets to build > every Makefile. They seem to have more energy than I do so I'd say > they're approach is winning by default. > > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/Linux-PAM/?cvsroot=pam&hideattic=0&only_with_tag=autoconf-modules > > If anyone wants to help with either effort, their suggestions, patches > etc., will be welcome. [Although, given David and Steve's general > distaste for my approach, I'll need some positive feedback to invest > more effort into it.] Best regards Andrey
