Re: Configuration and build clean-up

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> [ much good stuff ]

> - Would be nice if a top level makefile took care of the documentation
> build and install as well.

Yeah. The doc makefile already depends on configure having been run,
and it's just plain weird that it's reaching over to a sibling directory
instead of being configured by a configure script above it.

> - Automated packaging will really not work otherwise.

What do you mean by automated packaging?

> Any objections to this point?

All the specifics sound good to me. One thing to watch out for is that
we will probably still need something comparable to the current setup's
"template" mechanism to select system-specific hints (like which tas()
implementation to use). Overall there is a lot of painstaking
portability work embodied in the current setup; don't throw the baby out
with the bathwater while you're trying to make us fully Autoconf-ish.

I didn't notice anything about libtool in your list of items, but
I should think that replacing Makefile.shlib with libtool would be
a much better way of handling the various client shlibs. Is that
part of your plan?

BTW, I cleaned out a few Makefile bogosities yesterday, so be sure you
are starting from current sources.

regards, tom lane