Hi Reuben, On 23 Jul 2011, at 17:16, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > On 23 Jul 2011, at 05:50, Reuben Thomas wrote: >> build-aux/bootstrap seems to use gnulib.mk rather than Makefile.am, >> and further to hardwire this choice. This is what bootstrap-using >> projects like coreutils seem to use. But I can't find it documented >> anywhere; am I missing something? If not, a note in the manual might >> be nice. > > > About a year ago, I completely rewrote the bootstrap script to be > considerably more straight forward and extensible, while factoring > out the (then at least - I haven't looked again recently) many ad-hoc > changes in coreutils, bison, tar and m4. Hardcoding of gnulib.mk and > others is one of the many shortcomings I addressed in the rewrite. > > Instructions are in the script. I had planned to roll a decent patch > transposing those instructions into the manual, but due to lack of > interest, I kept it as is. It's been working admirably in my own > projects, by adding it to gnulib-local so that gnulib-tool picks it > up instead of the upstream gnulib supplied script. I also have the > bootstrap.conf files to port (circa Sept 2010) coreutils, bison, tar, > m4 and libtool trees to use the rewritten bootstrap. There is, of > course, more code overall, but the bootstrap.conf files are the only > bespoke parts with everything in bootstrap itself shared between all > projects that use it. > > If you have any interest in using it, or some more encouragement to > spur me back into trying to have it adopted upstream I'd be happy to > hear back from you!
I forgot to link the relevant posts from the gnulib archives: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-09/msg00033.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00189.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-10/msg00271.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2011-04/msg00074.html Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)
