[Chicken-hackers] Re: separate build directory support for Chicken

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> felix winkelmann <address@hidden> writes:

 >>> Just a thought but, won't adding lots of features to the plain
 >>> makefiles build system make it so complex as to become
 >>> unmanageable?

 >> Actually, I'm planning a build system rewrite which, by utilising
 >> some of the GNU Make features, will make the build system /much
 >> more/ manageable.  I've already reduced rules.make down to 38 KiB
 >> (i. e., by 40%) and it doesn't look that I'm going to stop just yet.

 > Reducing size isn't everything. I'd rather have simple makefiles than
 > complex ones, even if their bigger.

        My point is that the code duplication increases complexity.

 >> PS.  Would there be a plenty of Make and Autotools experts among the
 >> Chicken developers, I'd be happy to suggest a transition to
 >> Autotools.  Apparently, it's not the case, so I'm trying to do my
 >> best with the plain GNU Make-based build system.

 > Never. Autotools will not be supported. We had that already and using
 > autotools is a sure way of making builds unmanagable (IMHO).

 > I appreciate your suggestions, but the make-based build was done
 > exactly for the reason to simplify it, to remove hacks, and to make
 > it less dependent on shell magic. It's dumb, sure, but that's fine
 > with me.

        It's the ``that's fine with me'' thing that matters the most
        there.

        I have invested a lot of time into learning both Make and
        Autotools, and have autoconfiscated quite a few packages duiring
        the last three years.  Most of the time, Autotools allows one to
        reduce some horrid 1000 lines Makefile into a neat Makefile.am,
        with just two variables (foo_SOURCES and bin_PROGRAMS) or so.
        It's a sure way to make the build system more manageable /for
        me/.