gnu-crypto-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU Crypto] Re: GCJ build


From: Olivier LF
Subject: Re: [GNU Crypto] Re: GCJ build
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:04:51 +1000
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 09:15:50AM +1000, Raif S. Naffah wrote:
> earlier i thought it was a good idea, but thinking more about it there 
> are some consequences:
> 
> if we decide to include Makefile.in, we have to also include (and 
> maintain) configure and friends (aclocal.m4, config.guess, etc.).
> 
> on the other hand, if somebody wants to hack the code, is it fair to 
> require them to have the GNU tool chain installed (automake, autoconf, 
> libtool)? if they are not familiar with how the GNU build system works, 
> then ANT should be enough for them.
> 

Hackers will never have a problem. Most of the time they'll have the right
software already installed anyway.
Testers will have more issues. A typical tester is someone working on a
different project with a dependency on Crypto. From time to time, a bug 
will be trace down to a problem with Crypto. Crypto being low on 
their priority list they'll have little time to report bugs and try things.

Stephen Hawking mentioned that his editor had the following warning: 
each equation in the book would half the number of readers. As a result he 
did not put any (or may be one: E=mc2).
I believe it is pretty much the same for testers. Each extra requirement
to build the software cuts in half the pool of potential testers.

The generated files are, well... generated. It is simple to automate
their generation as well as the associated CVS commit.



> if the above makes sense, and we do not want to over burden ourselves 
> maintaining stuff that is generated by the tools anyway (and eliminate 
> the need for including such files in the deliverables), may be we 
> should make the build rely/use the auto* magic, even with the gcj/ 
> alternative.

I am not sure if I understand that one. Are you saying that even
releases should have the dependency on autotools? That would be very
unconventional.

About your previous post:

if USE_GCJ
...
...


yes, Makefile.in includes new targets outside the conditional!
and you get broken Makefiles without the "configure" check for 
libtool/shared libraries stuff.

Olivier

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Olivier Louchart-Fletcher




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]