D J Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My project-management tools eliminate this problem by using a top-down
> build strategy with what one might call ``just-in-time dependencies'';
> but it will take some work to clean these tools up for widespread use.
I'd love to see this stuff; that wo
Russ Allbery writes:
> Furthermore, with a fixed Makefile, how do you intend to optionally
> include or exclude portions of a build tree from the build?
You can't. A Makefile specifies a list of source files for each target
file. The make program reads these lists and rebuilds any targets that
ma
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. Dan doesn't do it that way because it's wrong. Dan's insight is
> simply that make consults a database called a filesystem. So instead of
> having a shell script create its own database, and from that a Makefile,
> he has a fixed Makefile cre
Russell Nelson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > autoconf most certainly is not monolithic. It *generates* a monolithic
> > shell script, precisely because that shell script is performing
> > workarounds for things that Dan doesn't deal with and is producing output
> > in a form that Dan do
Russ Allbery writes:
> autoconf most certainly is not monolithic. It *generates* a monolithic
> shell script, precisely because that shell script is performing
> workarounds for things that Dan doesn't deal with and is producing output
> in a form that Dan doesn't use.
Right. Dan doesn't do
Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: autoconf?
If you want build root support, I've got a patch to the
qmail-1.03 distribution that adds that in.
Well, does not something like
DESTDIR=/okidoki
make
make man
mkdir -p $DESTDIR/var/q
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, Russ, I guess you've never been bitten by config.cache.
No, I can honestly say that I've never been bitten by config.cache. I've
run configure, seen a bunch of things show up as cached when I knew I
didn't have a valid cache, and deleted the ca
If you want build root support, I've got a patch to the
qmail-1.03 distribution that adds that in.
Well, does not something like
DESTDIR=/okidoki
make
make man
mkdir -p $DESTDIR/var/qmail
chmod 755 $DESTDIR/var/qmail
echo $DESTDIR/var/qmail > conf-qmail
make install
make inst
Russell Nelson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Also note that Dan is reinventing parts of autoconf in his build process;
> > that's what all those try programs are. He's doing precisely the same
> > thing that autoconf does, namely write out a little program, compile it,
> > and see what
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 08:11:03 -0400 (EDT), Russell Nelson wrote:
>Sorry, Russ, but autoconf is a lose (compared to Dan's methods --
>obviously it's much better than the old "edit the Makefile; edit
>config.h; make; iterate" way). It's just wrong, all the way.
>Something can solve a problem but st
Russ Allbery writes:
> Also note that Dan is reinventing parts of autoconf in his build process;
> that's what all those try programs are. He's doing precisely the same
> thing that autoconf does, namely write out a little program, compile it,
> and see what happens. So he's actually using p
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is that the portability hacks have the wrong attitude. They
> say "how do we get program foo to work with os bar's c library"? Dan
> says "os bar's c library is a piece of shit anyway. Why bother figuring
> out all the many and myriad wa
Russ Allbery writes:
> I can readily believe that Dan's build construction tools are quite
> sophisticated for the problems that he's trying to solve. I'm a little
> more skeptical that they're going to make software packages that are
> essentially the distilled portability hacks of *hundreds
Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suspect that Dan has Makefile-generation tools which make autoconf and
> automake look like the babbling of a child.
autoconf and automake have been designed to solve a problem that Dan isn't
even really trying to solve. They are designed to run an
Russell Nelson writes:
> Sam writes:
> > Autoconf+automake is far more portable than Qmail. I estimate that every
> > time I roll together a new package, autoconf+automake saves me about 8-16
> > hours of work.
>
> I suspect that Dan has Makefile-generation tools which make autoconf
> and au
Sam writes:
> Autoconf+automake is far more portable than Qmail. I estimate that every
> time I roll together a new package, autoconf+automake saves me about 8-16
> hours of work.
I suspect that Dan has Makefile-generation tools which make autoconf
and automake look like the babbling of a chi
Adam D. McKenna writes:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 01:07:40PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> > "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >Does "his" way support VPATH builds? Cross-compiling? Build-roots?
> >
> > Sometimes "better" doesn't mean "has more features". Sometimes it
> > means smaller, s
Dave Sill writes:
> "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Does "his" way support VPATH builds? Cross-compiling? Build-roots?
>
> Sometimes "better" doesn't mean "has more features". Sometimes it
And sometimes it does.
> means smaller, simpler, more reliable. Hmm, sounds like qmail.
>
> The
Sam wrote:
> Does "his" way support VPATH builds? Cross-compiling? Build-roots?
If you want build root support, I've got a patch to the qmail-1.03 distribution
that adds that in. Created it for my own internal RPM. I'd be happy to post the
patch if anybody wants it.
- David Harris
Princip
On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 01:07:40PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Does "his" way support VPATH builds? Cross-compiling? Build-roots?
>
> Sometimes "better" doesn't mean "has more features". Sometimes it
> means smaller, simpler, more reliable. Hmm, sounds like
"Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Does "his" way support VPATH builds? Cross-compiling? Build-roots?
Sometimes "better" doesn't mean "has more features". Sometimes it
means smaller, simpler, more reliable. Hmm, sounds like qmail.
Then there's the question of "better for whom?" For the develo
Dave Sill writes:
> Sergei Kolobov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >BTW, any reason why DJB also is not using autoconf?
>
> Of course: his way is better.
Does "his" way support VPATH builds? Cross-compiling? Build-roots?
--
Sam
Sergei Kolobov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>BTW, any reason why DJB also is not using autoconf?
Of course: his way is better.
-Dave
23 matches
Mail list logo
