David Lee wrote: > 1. Andrew's proposal is to leave all the Makefiles alone, except for > adding a line "include Make.Rules". This file is generated from its > generic template "Make.Rules.in" by the local sysadmin running > "configure" (itself derived and distributed, by the package maintainer, > from "configure.in"). > > 2. Steve and I propose making all the Makefiles derived, by the local > sysadmin, from their template "Makefile.in". We still continue to > derive and use Make.Rules, exactly as in Andrew's proposal. > I request (plead!) that we add this extra functionality, as, indeed, is > recommended by GNU. > Well, I'd happy to do 2 after we get 1 working, and see it is still needed. If you concern is that you need to be able to configure the same tree for multiple OSes at the same time and (say) make use of a cross-compiler on one beefy system to prepare stuff for 7 OSes, then perhaps we can come up with a scheme that looks like this: cvs co XXX-PAM cd XXX-PAM autoconf cd .. mkdir os_number2 cd os_number2 ../XXX-PAM/configure --with-os_number2 make The point being at all compiled objects would be built below the os_number2 directory (and outside the source tree), and the --with-os_number2 option would communicate os specific details of the local configuration. I've seen this scheme used before. It really is a big change, and not one I want to make any specific release dependent on implementing, but for the sake of argument, would this sort of thing address your need? Cheers Andrew
