This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc-4.9: How to generate Makefile.in from a modified Makefile.am?
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: svante dot signell at gmail dot com
- Cc: Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj at gmail dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org List" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:40:43 +0000
- Subject: Re: gcc-4.9: How to generate Makefile.in from a modified Makefile.am?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1395829471 dot 14680 dot 18 dot camel at G3620 dot my dot own dot domain> <CADj25HPuspXDKYdRAYLKLeuymcbOKkPpD=jFQdkTLKSXxDNa+w at mail dot gmail dot com> <1395912941 dot 14680 dot 57 dot camel at G3620 dot my dot own dot domain> <CAH6eHdSaDksAzdkTKp__itDn1yErBf_b96P=q2xRSGci7QSgPw at mail dot gmail dot com> <1395915929 dot 14680 dot 63 dot camel at G3620 dot my dot own dot domain>
On 27 March 2014 10:25, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 10:10 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 27 March 2014 09:35, Svante Signell wrote:
>> > - In an ideal situation no generated files should be shipped with a
>> > distribution, i.e. only configure.ac and Makefile.am, no configure,
>> > Makefile.in Makefile when not needed!
>>
>> But then end users need to have the autotools installed.
>
> I'm talking about people building packages from source, how many end
> users do that? The people building from source are either developers or
> package maintainers and the have these tools installed, for sure.
I'm sorry but that's just not true.
Whether it's a good idea or not, lots of people build GCC from source,
and some don't even seem to be able to read the installation
documentation. Requiring autotools is an extra obstacle for them.
>> Installing alternative versions of the autotools should not be so
>> difficult for people who are capable of patching the GCC source.
>
> Of course not, but what's hindering upgrading the build system tools
> when new source versions are released.
It's a lot of work. Patches welcome.
> And again, will the autotools
> ever be backwards compatible?
This is the wrong list for that question.