Re: diff/Makefile.am

[Derek R. Price]

Pavel Roskin wrote:

> Hello, Derek!
>
> > > I'm attaching diff/Makefile.am. It has been tested, including "make dist".
> > > Just put it on CVS in the diff directory and regenerate diff/Makefile.in.
> >
> > If you'd submit that to the diff-utils people, we wouldn't have to maintain
> > it any more.
>
> Not true. diffutils would require a different Makefile.am, since it has
> much more files (72 files in version 2.7.2). Besides, it supports gettext,
> which we don't want to be in CVS.
>
> On the other hand, it's not that hard to maintain Makefile.am compared to
> Makefile.in. If you look at that file, there is nothing to maintain except
> a list of files.

Yeah, but moving to Libtool is on my "sometime over the next few months" list.
Doing that opens up the possibility of compiling with shared libraries.  I think
_this_ means that we could move to the Automake recommended method of including
other packages (such as zlib & diff-utils), which is making them stand-alone
sub-packages and even configuring them separately, so they can be installed when
necessary and ignored when not.

Of course all of this is probably rather ambitious, the plan is somewhat
dependent on my admittedly still slightly sketchy knowledge of Libtool, and I am
fairly certain that zlib, at least, would need some work before this would be
possible, but I figured if we could get a head start...

I understand not wanting to get your hands immersed that far in the diff-utils
project, though.

Derek

--
Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:dprice@openavenue.com     OpenAvenue ( http://OpenAvenue.com )
--
I will not teach others to fly.
I will not teach others to fly.
I will not teach others to fly...

          - Bart Simpson on chalkboard, _The Simpsons_