quilt-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make


From: Martin Quinson
Subject: Re: [Quilt-dev] auto~conf/make
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:12:32 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.3i

I used automake quite heavily on my projects, in Grid computing context (ie,
wide area distributed computing), on rather big projects, with rather
complex dependencies.

But I would say that automake is a bit overengineered for small projects
like quilt.

Like always, I prefer encounter the problem before spending time to solve it.

Bye, Mt.

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 10:49:14PM +0000, James Rowe wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:55:02 +0100
> Andreas Gruenbacher <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > what benefits do you see in switching to Automake? What problems does
> > it solve? I consider Automake a major PITA, and  haven't jet seen a
> > single project where the additional level of abstraction introduced
> > helps more than it hurts.
> 
>   I guess it is all down to personal preference, *I* can't think of a
> project that hasn't benefited from the additional level of abstraction.
> 
>   You can spend days adding extensions to static makefiles just to deal
> with problems that have been solved a long time ago with automake.  You
> end up continually reinventing the wheel from day one without automake,
> just look at the state of the simple quilt makefile.
> 
>   For example, the totally non-portable installation process.  Sure you
> can fix it, but why?  Moving to automake instantly solves that problem,
> and will no doubt solve many in the future.
> 
>   It gives you, as a user or developer, access to targets you expect
> from a build system nowadays... and not just the ones somebody has got
> round to adding manually.  And at what cost to the developer?  Well a
> perl installation(and how unlikely are you not to have perl) and in my
> opinion a distinct saving in time.  
> 
>   Even with the totally segregated Makefile.am's(in the version I posted
> a link to) the size of the actual source makefiles are the same(total vs
> single Makefile.in from CVS).  That includes support for all the
> features from Makefile.in, and instant support for things like package
> testing and uninstalling.  And on top of that because of a few choices I
> made at the time, and hadn't bothered to change yet for this exact
> reason, could have been cut in half probably.
> 
>   Really though, I don't have the time(nor the interest) for going in to
> this especially when I believe it is going to be totally pointless.
> 
> Jay
> 
> -- 
> 
> www.jnrowe.uklinux.net
> GnuPG key fingerprint = 7721 D12B 822B 20FE FCE6  B2B7 7CDF C9DF D16A
> 87D7
> 



> _______________________________________________
> Quilt-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev


-- 
Avoir l'estomac dans les talons n'a aucun rapport avec un étalon qui vous
balance un coup de sabot dans l'estomac.
          -- Pierre Dac




reply via email to

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