Vikram Ambrose wrote: > Joshua Brindle wrote: >> * make clean from the top doesn't actually clean anything, it just >> removes the makefiles >> >> * there is no way to distclean from the top level, eg., make the >> repository look like it will when we package up a release >> > The top level makefile was just a proof-of-concept. If you need a top > level makefile, then write one. The one i supplied was only intended to > show that the tree builds. So, the things you expect others to do include: make the top level makefile useful (clean, distclean, debug build, etc) fix the CFLAGS in all the app/lib makefiles add the dispol/dismod makefile add the ruby swig support add make test targets to all lib Makefiles Anything else? I'm not adverse to the patch set, and when/if we ack and merge it, it will be our responsibility to maintain but I'm worried about it not being completed before that. I'm not an autotools expert (or even a beginner) and neither are the other maintainers. As such I don't see much motivation to finish up the patch set for you in order to get it in a mergeable state (and this isn't abnormal for opensource projects, try dropping an incomplete patch on lkml and see where it gets you). -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
