Matias Atria on Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:06:59 -0500 (EST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: R.I.P., Configure?

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Bill Allombert wrote:

> 1) We cannot use libtool, because libtool forbid doing things like putting non
> PIC code in dynamic libraries, that we cannot avoid until someone volonteer
> to rewrite all the asm files to use GOT.

What do you mean by "forbid" ? Is it because of the linker flags used by
libtool? If you compile .s files without libtool into a .lo file, linking
with libtool --mode=link fails?

> 2) We cannot use automake, because there is no support for libraries outside
> libtool. Also automake does not support splitting source code in separate
> directories. Also there is no direct support for putting object files in a 
> separate directory, [...] Automake only support VPATH.

I don't think sacrificing the use of automake is a big deal. But what's
wrong with VPATH? Most GNU software uses that method to build outside source
trees and it works fine.

> 3) We can use autoconf, but it is a bit of works to rewrite the Makefile.SH
> and the benefit are not clear. [...]

I would imagine that one of the benefits of having several small
instead of one big Makefile.SH is that it would make maintainance easier,
but please correct me if I'm wrong.

> 4) Autoconf has no support for matching sub architectures to kernel
> architectures. [...]

Yes, this is a problem, and my first attempt at a configure script was very
messy because of this.

Sacrificing libtool would not be too bad either. We would only need one more
"case $osname-$arch in" to figure out how to produce PIC and link shared
libaries :-) Or one could do what bash does (or used to do?) which was not
as fancy as libtool but worked.