Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release

[Samium Gromoff]

At Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:27:23 -0500,
Mark A. Flacy wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Jan-Benedict" == Jan-Benedict Glaw <address@hidden> writes:
> Jan-Benedict> 
> Jan-Benedict> Up to now, I've never really used auto{make,conf} really for
> Jan-Benedict> anything else than as a _user_. I've ./configure'd something,
> Jan-Benedict> but never ever created the autoconf/automake _base_ to get
> Jan-Benedict> that ./configure. Maybe you are volunteering to do it? As it
> Jan-Benedict> seems, this project doesn't have complicated source relations
> Jan-Benedict> nor dependancies. You'll do that easily (and I'll most
> Jan-Benedict> probably learn how to use the auto.* tools:)
> 
> *Grunt*
> 
> Fair enough request; however...
> 
> a) I found his makefiles almost impossible to figure out. "You are in a
>    maze of twisty little make macros, all different."
> 
> b) It will be a rather low priority for me, so it may take up to a week.
> 
> c) I'll email the resulting files to you and the original author rather
>    than the entire list (whose members could probably care less about the
>    entire matter).
> 
> (No, I wasn't volunteering; this is something the original author should
>  have done on his own.  Automake is easier to use than it appears, so it'll
>  be one evening's work most of which will be take up with point (a) above.)

 Erm, i thought i`ve made this clear enough already.

 I do not like automake, and i actually do not see any reason to use it.
 In the very documentation of itself the following excerpt is held:

<quote>
   The GNU Makefile Standards Document (*note Makefile Conventions:
(standards)Makefile Conventions.)  is long, complicated, and subject to
change.  The goal of Automake is to remove the burden of Makefile
maintenance from the back of the individual GNU maintainer (and put it
on the back of the Automake maintainer).
</quote>

 I do not pursue the task of making my Makefile compatible with GNU
standards, because:

        - it does buy me nothing
        - it creates a huge structure which is very hard to track
problems in.
        - its output is suboptimal in the terms of resulting build time

 Autoconf is different, it is aimed at portability, and i do not throw
it away. I just haven`t yet got to use it in this system.

 And yes, i _have_ the experience of maintaining a project with
automake/autoconf/libtool.

> -- 
>  Mark A. Flacy
>  Any opinions expressed above are my own.  Any facts expressed above
>  would imply that I know what I'm writing about.  Sometimes, I do!
> "The problem with Forth is not that it's bad, but that it's insanely
>  great at the wrong damn things." -- Bruce R. McFarling

regards, Samium Gromoff