Re: [leafnode-list] PLEASE let us switch to some automatic Makefile generator

[Matthias Andree <ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> The problems you raised weren't problems created by using make rather
> than autoconf, they were problems created by bugs in the Makefile.  My
> experience has been that while autoconf is great for people who
> understand it works it can be a very unapproachable tool otherwise and
> the Makefiles it produces are sometimes not a model of readability.

True, but I am using automake in leafnode-1.9.17ma3 and haven't yet got
"it doesn't work out" screaming. Note the resulting Makefile is not
meant to be human-readable, though apart from its mere size, it is.

> > Does anybody here have experience with Cook (to replace make) or
> > Aegis (to replace CVS)?
> 
> Does cook require anything on the user side that can't be shipped in the
> tarball?  If so, it's a non-starter.

Yes, it requires cook, as I figured when trying it out, plus make2cook
failed for some conditions in the Makefile.in (could be worked around,
but I don't see the point).

I'm currently looking if build 0.44 by ftp.superscript.com does what we
need. It is quite automated, but I haven't yet figured how to fit
autoconf in that scheme or SUFFICIENTLY work around autoconf. It's
somewhat nifty since you only collect some file around like nntpd=x
which contains lnutil.a, and lnutil=l which lists the object files that
go in that library, and build cares for the rest; and it builds a
portable Makefile on request.

I will also have a look at Troll's tmake (might require Perl though, not
sure ATM, if so, would be a showstopper on many commercial Unices).

-- 
Matthias Andree

-- 
leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- mailing list for leafnode
To unsubscribe, send mail with "unsubscribe" in the subject to the list