lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng 2.13-rc1
        Hi Bodo :)

    * Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> dixit:
    > Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk> wrote:
    > > On 4 Jul 2007, DervishD stated:
    > >> Anyway, if you don't like mobs or you just don't want to try it,
    > >> that's fine, but please don't use autotools, it doesn't make much sense
    > >> for a linux only project, since you will be using only the "directory
    > >> choosing" part of autotools. Maybe a hand made script will help (and I
    > >
    > > Oh, yeah, great, another hand-rolled build system. That's *juwt* what
    > > those of us who have autotools working well (with config.site's that
    > > do all we need and then some) are looking forward to.
    > >
    > > There are advantages to standardization, you know. A *lot* of
    > > autobuilders know how to make autoconf-generated configure scripts jump
    > > through hoops. I was downright *happy* when util-linux was
    > > autoconfiscated: I could ditch the code to handle automatic
    > > configuration of yet another one-package hand-rolled build system.
    >
    > Standardisation is good, but autotools (as they are used) usurally isn't.

    Usually, by picking other's project configure.in and tweak blindly.

    > It tests for the availability of a fortran compiler for a C-only
    > project, checks the width of integers on i386 for projects not caring
    > about that and fails to find installed libraries without telling how
    > it was supposed to find them or how to make it find that library.

    My favourite is when the project doesn't honor --*dir options. Or
    when the project breaks badly if you put some files in different places
    by using configure options... That's good standarization.

    > Configuring the build of an autotools program is harder than nescensary;
    > if it used a config file, you could easily save it somewhere while adding
    > comments on how and why you did *that* choice, and you could possibly
    > use a set of default configs which you'd just include.

    Looks like CMake...

    > I'm really really happy if I read 'edit Makefile.conf and run make...'.

    Again, this looks like CMake...

    I share your view entirely.

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

    --
    Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
    It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-05 21:23    [W:2.241 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site