Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: automake sux

[Nathaniel Smith]

> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:30:37PM -0500, graydon hoare wrote:
> > that said, I agree that scons is nicer than autotools. if you want to 
> > whip up the appropriate SConstruct file as a counterargument, I may well 
> > shift to using it. I am evaluating QMTest presently as a replacement for 
> > autotest, for similar reasons. I just haven't made up my mind 
> > completely. there are a lot of codgers for whom python is *less* well 
> > understood than Makefile.am, not more. several of them are people I hope 
> > to sway to using monotone :)

SCons, unfortunately, while strictly more powerful than make, is not
yet really able to replace autoconf, as far as I can tell.  Using
autoconf together with scons would be a reasonable thing to do,
actually.  Not sure any of this is worth it; monotone is pretty
straightforward to build.

I guess it's my job to argue for QMTest too :-)  Fortunately, this is
easy; autotest isn't a standard at all, and nobody will be surprised
if you don't use it.  Besides which, running the test suite isn't even
necessary to install monotone, and besides besides which, it seems
like even a lot of the codgers you mention are almost eager to get
away from DejaGNU et al...

> > since this is completely unintuitive, it seems to have become the 
> > "standard" to put a file called autogen.sh in your build directory
> > which runs these in order. I have one in mine, but I now notice I
> > haven't added it to the manifest. shall I?

Well, I would use it :-)

-- Nathaniel

-- 
Eternity is very long, especially towards the end.
  -- Woody Allen