On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:06:21AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Actually, I've generally had to get a later version of autotools off the net
> to make it work when building our packages and the packages that ours depend
> upon (which are also newer than the version in many Linux distributions or
> aren't included in them at all). There is also a great deal of confusion
> regarding M4 macro directories used by autotools that end up being
> distributed with the package and are not compatible with the host's version
> of autotools.
This could be considered a bug. If the feature required is not a very
important one, one may wish to keep compatibility with older versions of
autotools.
>
> This has pretty much been the largest hassle in building our software that
> I've faced. We've also seen developers breaking the build for other
> developers, and thus Dave Witten had a separate build system from David Rowe,
> which has not encouraged Dave Witten to continue development - and IMO that
> is a _big_ problem.
>
Also keep in mind that right now we're pretty much in a sweet spot with
cmake. But those toolchain compatibility issues will creep later on with
cmake as it matures and its developers seek on new and incompatible
features.
--
Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755 jabber:[email protected]
+972-50-7952406 mailto:[email protected]
http://www.xorcom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent
caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under
version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
