From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761900AbXGETUR (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:20:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757167AbXGETUE (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:20:04 -0400 Received: from smtp01.cdmon.com ([86.109.99.230]:65448 "EHLO smtp01.cdmon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751636AbXGETUB (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:20:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 21:20:02 +0200 From: DervishD To: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> Cc: Nix , Karel Zak , List util-linux-ng , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng 2.13-rc1 Message-ID: <20070705192002.GB11204@DervishD> Mail-Followup-To: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>, Nix , Karel Zak , List util-linux-ng , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org 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-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Organization: DervishD Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Bodo :) * Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> dixit: > Nix 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!