From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763343AbXGFMv5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:51:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763330AbXGFMvq (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:51:46 -0400 Received: from smtp01.cdmon.com ([86.109.99.230]:63108 "EHLO smtp01.cdmon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763184AbXGFMvn (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:51:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:51:37 +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: <20070706125137.GA1518@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> <20070705192002.GB11204@DervishD> 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: > On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, DervishD wrote: > > * Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> dixit: > > > > Standardisation is good, but autotools (as they are used) usurally isn't. > > > > Usually, by picking other's project configure.in and tweak blindly. > > If it were that easy to write a correct automake script, people would do > that. Wouldn't they? That's exactly what I meant! People don't write good autotools scripts because it's difficult to learn autoconf and automake and it's almost impossible to master. It's more or less easy to write an autoconf script, but it's not so easy to make it right, powerful and to honor every configure switch, etc... > > > 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... > > Obviously something I should look at. Me too. I've learned a bit of CMake because I have my own building system ("configure" compatible from the point of view of the packager), but instead of adding new features I think I'm going to switch to CMake fully. 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!