Re: [patch 1/5] btrfs-progs: convert to autotools

["Dongjun Shin" <djshin90@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@jeffreymahoney.com> wrote:
>>>  This patch converts the btrfs-progs build system from a single Makefile
>>>  to the autotools suite.
>>>
>>>  The advantages are:
>>>  Easier construction of Makefiles
>>>  Easier to breakout the source into separate directories for easier management
>>>  Easier to build shared libraries automatically
>>>  Automatic checking for optional libraries, like libext2fs for btrfs-convert
>>>  Automatic infrastructure for installing and testing
>>>
>>>  The caveats are:
>>>  Opinions on autotools are... mixed.
>>>  make C=1 no longer works, but is replaced by make check.
>>
>> Please make this optional..
>> I would really prefer the simple makefile that it has now..
>> If the proposed advantages are a wanted feature, I would gladly try to
>> supply patches for the makefile to support them..
>> Just to keep it away from autotool hell.
>
> Yeah, the one-time 10 seconds of ./configure can be annoying while it
> sanity checks your system, but how is a 70-line Makefile better than a
> 5-line Makefile.am? While it does essentially the same thing?
> Infrastructure exists for a reason.
>
> I'm not a huge fan of autotools either. It's heavy and annoying at
> times. It can be inflexible as I rediscovered while trying to make C=1
> work. On the other hand, I'm not so much of a purist that I want to
> commit anyone who touches the code to understanding a maze of
> Makefile(s) either.
>
> This is the next generation file system for Linux. The reality is that
> there is competition from other OSes. How is it a bad thing to make
> things easier for potential developers to access the code? Initially
> there may be a number of shy folks who just want a library they can work
> with. Yes, the library will change as things progress. Making things
> like extending it and installing it easier can only be a good thing.
>

I expect Jeff's work will make it easier for distro (or anyone) to include
btrfs and btrfs-progs as experimental packages. More people can test
btrfs without worring about the build process and dependency.

However, I'm not sure if btrfs is ready for testing by non-developers.

-- 
Dongjun