Re: [PATCH 2/2 v4] btrfs-progs: optimize btrfs_scan_lblkid() for multiple calls

[Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:51:27PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:47:35PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> >  What I see critical is missing ./configure, because it's pretty ugly
> >  to add hardcoded dependencies (e.g. libudev), there is also no checks
> >  for another libs, Makefile does not care about place where libs are
> >  installed, header files,  etc. etc.
> 
> It does, prefix and libdir are set conditionally, DESTDIR works.
> 
> >  Is there any fundamental problem with autoconf? If no, then I'm ready
> >  to send patches with some autotools stuff. Comments?
> 
> Yeah the build dependencies checks would be nice, there's no problem
> with autoconf.

 OK, I'll try to prepare something next week.

> The Makefile has been manualy crafted and supports some macro magic to
> build several binaries from one rule, static targets, quiet/verbose
> build. I want to preserve all of this so transition to automake may take
> time (or may not happen in the end).

 Just note, it's fine to expect (require) some build-system features,
 but IMHO it's bad idea to think about build system as about stable
 and always backwardly compatible interface (./configure options,
 Makefile vars, etc).

 For example for util-linux we have changed many many things in last
 (~7) years without negative feedback from downstream maintainers or
 users. IMHO more important is to follow usual conventions than assume
 that my "make FOO=bar" will work forever.

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@redhat.com>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com