[LinuxBIOS] Autoconf + Automake for flashrom?

[Uwe Hermann]

Hi,

would anybody want to migrate flashrom to Autoconf+Automake or do you
have any objections?

On the one hand it might be a bit overkill, but on the other hand we
could improve/ease portability quite a bit, I guess. It also
"streamlines" the build process to what people are used to:

./configure && make && make install

I can provide patcheѕ if we agree to do it. Opinions?

Uwe.

[Stefan Reinauer]

* Uwe Hermann  [070204 15:43]:
> Hi,
>
> would anybody want to migrate flashrom to Autoconf+Automake or do you
> have any objections?

It works without. Why would you want to add that much maintenance
overhead?
> On the one hand it might be a bit overkill, but on the other hand we
> could improve/ease portability quite a bit, I guess. It also
> "streamlines" the build process to what people are used to:

Portability? What issues in particular?

[Uwe Hermann]

On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 04:06:21PM +0100, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Uwe Hermann  [070204 15:43]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > would anybody want to migrate flashrom to Autoconf+Automake or do you
> > have any objections?
>
> It works without. Why would you want to add that much maintenance
> overhead?

Dunno, it was just an idea ;) It's not _that_ much overhead usually,
though.

For LinuxBIOS itself Autoconf is obviously not a good idea, but for
flashrom (a userland application) this can be considered, IMHO.
> > On the one hand it might be a bit overkill, but on the other hand we
> > could improve/ease portability quite a bit, I guess. It also
> > "streamlines" the build process to what people are used to:
>
> Portability? What issues in particular?

For example the recent /dev/mem issue. The 'configure' script can check
for tons of stuff, compilers, paths, command line options for some
toolchain programs, header files, libraries (libpci, libz for flashrom),
and lots more.

Sure, all of that can be done with plain Makefiles and a bit of hacking,
but if we need _lots_ of such workarounds/checks Autoconf might be the
better option.
Think about porting flashrom to *BSD, Mac OS, etc. I'm pretty sure
more issues will arise over time.

But yeah, I was expecting resistance against this, lots of people seem
to dislike the Autotools ;) That's why I first asked before wasting time
preparing patches.

Uwe.

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Uwe Hermann wrote:
> would anybody want to migrate flashrom to Autoconf+Automake or do you
> have any objections?

Please don't. Autotools introduce major portability problems. Building
software which was autotoolized on another arch or autoconf/automake
version will usually result in compile failures. I had to deal with
that stuff often enough to see that it usually makes things worse.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

[ron minnich]

I would not like to see the autoconf/automake/etc. stuff invade our
tree. Plus, it has been shown, it's not needed. The plan9ports code
(swtch.com/plan9ports) is quite portable and uses none of
autoconf/autotools.

If we need autoconf, it can indicate that our code is put together
wrong. Let's fix our code, if we have to.

thanks

ron