Jason Edgecombe <[email protected]> writes: > On 04/12/2012 02:34 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> runtests itself assumes that something else will handle this, since for >> all of my other projects I use libtool. OpenAFS is somewhat unique >> among projects using that test driver at the moment in its reinvention >> of that wheel. (For reasons that I understand; libtool has its bugs >> too, of course. But this is something that it normally handles >> reasonably well with current versions.) > is there a reason why we shouldn't use libtool? licensing perhaps? I believe that we should use both Libtool and Automake, but the amount of work required for a transition is immense, and will also require working with the upstreams of both projects to resolve bugs. OpenAFS is more broadly portable than a lot of free software, and has some interesting and special build system challenges (such as the separate build of kernel modules). I've looked at doing this incrementally a few times, as have other people, but it's a very difficult change to make incrementally, and the amount of effort required is daunting. It's generally far easier to make incremental improvements to our current ad hoc arrangement of shell scripts with portability testing on the platforms we know we care about. Given current available development cycles and current development priorities, I think this sort of build system transition is unlikely to ever happen. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
