On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:51:27PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:47:35PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> > What I see critical is missing ./configure, because it's pretty ugly
> > to add hardcoded dependencies (e.g. libudev), there is also no checks
> > for another libs, Makefile does not care about place where libs are
> > installed, header files, etc. etc.
>
> It does, prefix and libdir are set conditionally, DESTDIR works.
>
> > Is there any fundamental problem with autoconf? If no, then I'm ready
> > to send patches with some autotools stuff. Comments?
>
> Yeah the build dependencies checks would be nice, there's no problem
> with autoconf.
OK, I'll try to prepare something next week.
> The Makefile has been manualy crafted and supports some macro magic to
> build several binaries from one rule, static targets, quiet/verbose
> build. I want to preserve all of this so transition to automake may take
> time (or may not happen in the end).
Just note, it's fine to expect (require) some build-system features,
but IMHO it's bad idea to think about build system as about stable
and always backwardly compatible interface (./configure options,
Makefile vars, etc).
For example for util-linux we have changed many many things in last
(~7) years without negative feedback from downstream maintainers or
users. IMHO more important is to follow usual conventions than assume
that my "make FOO=bar" will work forever.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <k...@redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
