[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: [patch] faster Makefile.in -> Makefile translation
From:       David Faure <david () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-04-03 9:27:43
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:59:48AM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > > > relicensing, but I first want to work on different solutions to get
> > > > our KDE_OUTPUT working.
> > > 
> > > Hmm. I first tried hard, to make KDE_OUTPUT to only use self written code.
> > > The problem is that AC_OUTPUT is really involved and does many funny
> > > things. If one wants to mimic this behaviour _and_ wants to change it only
> > > a little bit there is no other solution than to copy AC_OUTPUT and friends
> > > and change this copy.
> > Well, David's idea was to patch config.status after the act. I don't
> > know how useful this is, but you could use perl for that too ... ;)
> 
> I have a script which does exactly that ;) 
Great ! :)

> But again the problem is, when to call it. OK, it's clear, after creation
> of config.status, but before execution. Hehe. Now the only remaining
> problem is, that configure, as created by autoconf, has nothing better to
> do than execute this damn script right after writing the last line to it,
> and the code for outputting this sh.. is in AC_OUTPUT. (there is the
> option --no-create to configure which hinders exactly this execution)
I'm not aware of that option. Doesn't it solve the problem ?
We would run configure without creating makefiles, then patch
the generated config.status, then call the perl script (which would
look for the list of Makefiles to patch in configure.in, for instance).
(configure.in still exists in snapshots AFAIK)

> Or we can (after @autoconf in Makefile.common) patch configure to do the
> right thing. Man, what hack ;) So we would patch a file, to run a file
> which patches another file, which finaly patches many files. Uhh. ;)
:-)))) LOL :)

> > > OK, then we could kill most of the code dealing with the normal sed
> > > substitutions. But then perl would also be required by all people
> > > compiling from source. I don't think that would be a real problem, but I
> > > first thought that it would be a good idea, to have an option to fallback
> > > to normal configure behaviour.
> > It would. But this fallback could also be to s/KDE_OUTPUT/AC_OUTPUT;
> > autoconf...
> 
> But in the final configure there is no XX_OUTPUT anymore, which we could
> patch. I was concerned with source and snapshot users. They only have
> Makefile.in and configure. 
> We could provide a handmade configure.
Yes, patching config.status and calling it to create the Makefiles
need to be all done from configure, you're right.

David.
-- 
David FAURE
david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://home.clara.net/faure/
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]