[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make
From: |
Martin Quinson |
Subject: |
Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make |
Date: |
Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:12:32 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.3i |
I used automake quite heavily on my projects, in Grid computing context (ie,
wide area distributed computing), on rather big projects, with rather
complex dependencies.
But I would say that automake is a bit overengineered for small projects
like quilt.
Like always, I prefer encounter the problem before spending time to solve it.
Bye, Mt.
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 10:49:14PM +0000, James Rowe wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:55:02 +0100
> Andreas Gruenbacher <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > what benefits do you see in switching to Automake? What problems does
> > it solve? I consider Automake a major PITA, and haven't jet seen a
> > single project where the additional level of abstraction introduced
> > helps more than it hurts.
>
> I guess it is all down to personal preference, *I* can't think of a
> project that hasn't benefited from the additional level of abstraction.
>
> You can spend days adding extensions to static makefiles just to deal
> with problems that have been solved a long time ago with automake. You
> end up continually reinventing the wheel from day one without automake,
> just look at the state of the simple quilt makefile.
>
> For example, the totally non-portable installation process. Sure you
> can fix it, but why? Moving to automake instantly solves that problem,
> and will no doubt solve many in the future.
>
> It gives you, as a user or developer, access to targets you expect
> from a build system nowadays... and not just the ones somebody has got
> round to adding manually. And at what cost to the developer? Well a
> perl installation(and how unlikely are you not to have perl) and in my
> opinion a distinct saving in time.
>
> Even with the totally segregated Makefile.am's(in the version I posted
> a link to) the size of the actual source makefiles are the same(total vs
> single Makefile.in from CVS). That includes support for all the
> features from Makefile.in, and instant support for things like package
> testing and uninstalling. And on top of that because of a few choices I
> made at the time, and hadn't bothered to change yet for this exact
> reason, could have been cut in half probably.
>
> Really though, I don't have the time(nor the interest) for going in to
> this especially when I believe it is going to be totally pointless.
>
> Jay
>
> --
>
> www.jnrowe.uklinux.net
> GnuPG key fingerprint = 7721 D12B 822B 20FE FCE6 B2B7 7CDF C9DF D16A
> 87D7
>
> _______________________________________________
> Quilt-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
--
Avoir l'estomac dans les talons n'a aucun rapport avec un étalon qui vous
balance un coup de sabot dans l'estomac.
-- Pierre Dac
- [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make, James Rowe, 2003/02/06
- Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make, Andreas Gruenbacher, 2003/02/06
- Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make, James Rowe, 2003/02/06
- Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make,
Martin Quinson <=
- Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make, James Rowe, 2003/02/07
- Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make, Martin Quinson, 2003/02/12
- Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make, James Rowe, 2003/02/13
- Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make, Martin Quinson, 2003/02/13
- Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make, James Rowe, 2003/02/14
- Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make, Andreas Gruenbacher, 2003/02/14
- Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make, Andreas Gruenbacher, 2003/02/13