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

[Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>]

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. 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.

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.

The Makefiles generated by autotools is a huge mess, if autotools got it
wrong (again!), fixing them requires editing a lot of files.

I'm really really happy if I read 'edit Makefile.conf and run make...'.
-- 
No matter which way you have to march, its always uphill. 

Friß, Spammer: n@kqYYs.7eggert.dyndns.org mlygzw.k@d.7eggert.dyndns.org
 cDmOEZ@z-luqs.7eggert.dyndns.org .-@IfuiUgj.7eggert.dyndns.org