On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:05:54 +0100 Gunnar Ritter wrote:
> Glenn Fowler <gsf at research.att.com> wrote:
> > the build system we use also has to be taken into context
> >
> > it handles [...]
> That's all nice, but there remains the fact that it is very
> difficult to understand for outsiders (contrasting to plain
> makefiles). This is what significantly raises the maintenance
> burden, in particular if the advantages are not actually
> needed for a certain task.
plain makefiles
you mean like the gnu-make _private_
2K lines makfile input
2K line config input scripts
needed to generate Makefile among other things
every new auto* based package is an adventure
a different adventure from the ast build system,
but still not cut and dry
the advantage in our case is build system size and stability
90% makefile/iffe(configure) scripts remaining unchanged since the early 90's
35 line average makefile size over 143 makefiles
