On 11/18/2010 08:21 AM, Josip Rodin wrote:
I've actually been a bit confused by the notion of having separate autoconf
installations/invocation in multiple subdirectories. The point of that would
seem to be that if you just want to reconfigure and rebuild one particular
part, you can do it.
But who ever does that?
It seems to me that everyone only ever wants a single autoconf instance for
the whole tree, which can generate all the subdirectory makefiles.
Yeah, I've never quite understood that either, but it works which at the
end of the day is what matters most even if it seems odd.
If someone ever does decide to work on the build tools I wonder if it
might make sense to abandon autotools. I've used autotools for years and
it's been a love/hate relationship. I love it when someone else has done
the work, but hate it whenever I have to create new autotools
functionality or it breaks (which sadly is often) and I have to debug
it. It's baroque complexity is daunting and it often suffers from
versioning issues.
FWIW, a number of projects I have some involvement with are switching
over to CMake. It's still to early for me to give a report card on
CMake, but it's an interesting trend.
--
John Dennis <jden...@redhat.com>
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/
-
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
