Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng 2.13-rc1

[DervishD <lkml@dervishd.net>]

    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!