On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 12:40:47PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> while i agree in general that the target consumers of newer util-linux could
> probably get by with POSIX shell and not portable shell, i think it's best if
> we stick to "common" conventions that autotool / portable shell uses so as to
> reduce confusion/gotchas to new comers.
>
> other than the fact that it sucks we have to explicitly enumerate variables
> for every program, i think an updated patch would be OK.
>
> gnulib does something similar:
> gl_INCLUDE_EXCLUDE_PROG([prog_var_name], [list of progs])
> and then at the bottom it runs [list of progs] through a loop ... perhaps we
> could do something like that ... or maybe it'll just complicate things ...
I know this macro very well (Jim Meyering and I originally expected
that we will use it also in util-linux for deprecated programs), but
coreutils has completely different build system. There is everything
in one src/ directory and you need one list of programs only.
bin_PROGRAMS = $(OPTIONAL_BIN_PROGS)
in util-linux we have many subdirs and Makefiles and many
{bin,sbin,usrbin,usrsbin}_PROGRAMS and many AM_CONDITIONALs, ...
I'm really not sure we are able to use this concept in util-linux.
It would be nice to support --enable-static-programs and
--enable-no-install-program for arbitrary binary from util-linux, but
I don't see any simple way...
(Frankly, static compilation makes sense for very few programs. These
explicitly enumerate variables are not a problem.)
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
