-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Graham Leggett wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>> My gut says if we cannot solve this trivial problem over the >>> course of three+ months due to a utter lack of competency in >>> autoconf (and lack of time by the small handful who understand >>> it), perhaps the project should consider alternatives to autoconf >>> as we start looking down the road at APR 2.0.0? >>> >>> Does anyone have any positive experiences with other configuration >>> and feature detection tools? > > I recently had to get my hands dirty getting a 17 year old combination C > and C++ codebase cleaned up and the build system replaced from scratch, > and in the process got quite good at doing autoconf + automake + > libtool. We kept the config pretty standard, and found that as long as > you keep things simple and straightforward autoconf works pretty well. > > But regardless, a build tool needs to do at least this: > > - Track dependancies properly. If changing a header file does not cause > corresponding rebuild of code, the build system is broken. > > - Be as platform independant as possible. Here autoconf scores lots of > points by having had wide exposure and a long history. > > - Be reasonably straightforward to use. Here autoconf is not as clear, > but we did find that a lot of clarity comes from creating your > configure.ac's in as standard a way as possible.
Another benefit of autoconf is the interface presented to users - a ./configure script - is such a familiar and ubiquitous one. I'd rate myself as competent with autoconf+libtool, and am happy to help - - feel free to prod me explicitly towards any issues requiring an autotool-interested person if I don't notice myself. Max. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin) iD8DBQFD/hJlfFNSmcDyxYARAuMDAKDE4bfM5NgNWkk1r3ZeuXV9KlQAVwCfUZeY Z3v2ugKuU9nqdfbdK+OeY58= =Ok2r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
