Joshua Brindle wrote:
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)
I'll do that one if i get time this week.
fix the CFLAGS in all the app/lib makefiles
Like i said previously, do not force unnecessary CFLAGS onto the package
builder. If you need special flags add it to your configure line,
./configure CFLAGS="-Wall -I/blah -fPIC" --prefix=/usr --bindir=/bin
etc... A good place for these would be in the top level Makefile, which
would be a hard coded makefile.
add the dispol/dismod makefile
I'm doing this one
add the ruby swig support
add make test targets to all lib Makefiles
I'll try to do these this week, but I cannot test it, so be warned.
Anything else?
Nope.
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).
Surprised, a little, so I'll try my best to help with anything I can,
but time is not on my side.
Updates are in the mix, coming to a mailing list near you! :)
Vikram
--
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.
