From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: DervishD Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng 2.13-rc1 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 21:20:02 +0200 Message-ID: <20070705192002.GB11204@DervishD> References: <8CYT9-4Ou-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <8Dh9k-8lT-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <8DtDz-3xC-15@gated-at.bofh.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Nix , Karel Zak , List util-linux-ng , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Bodo Eggert <7eggert-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org> Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: util-linux-ng-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi Bodo :) * Bodo Eggert <7eggert-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org> dixit: > Nix wrote: > > On 4 Jul 2007, DervishD stated: > >> Anyway, if you don't like mobs or you just don't want to try i= t, > >> 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 "direct= ory > >> choosing" part of autotools. Maybe a hand made script will help (a= nd I > >=20 > > Oh, yeah, great, another hand-rolled build system. That's *juwt* wh= at > > those of us who have autotools working well (with config.site's tha= t > > do all we need and then some) are looking forward to. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Standardisation is good, but autotools (as they are used) usurally is= n'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 nescensa= ry; > if it used a config file, you could easily save it somewhere while ad= ding > 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. Ra=FAl N=FA=F1ez de Arenas Coronado --=20 Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!