[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:39:21 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; ) |
On Thursday 13 January 2011, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:36 PM, <address@hidden> wrote:
> > - I think that keeping configuration and build steps separated is
> > a very good idea.
>
> Do you mean this is a good idea in the context of todays systems
> - or -
> Do you mean this is good idea in general and could be a design
> criteria for future build environments?
>
The second one. But TBH I don't have any objective justification
for this, only "gut feelings". So I should better have said:
``I truly dislike the idea of not keeping configuration and build
steps separated.''
Maybe I'd just like a system that *allows* me to keep configuration
and build steps clerarly distinct if I want to. Yes, that would
be enough for me I guess.
> I think I agree to the first (mostly because I assume if the
> autotools developers and experts separate those steps, they do it
> for a good reason), but I don't understand my this could be a
> requirement in future systems.
>
> Wouldn't it be great to type "make" which automatically knows by
> depedencies that some configuration rules have to be executed
> (i.e. to determine facts about the environment if they are not
> available in form of small .h files or alike)?
>
Yes, but then, this could be implemented by having the build system
call the configuration system properly, no? More or less like is
done by automake-generated rebuild rules, just "on steroid" I guess.
> If, for example, Makefiles would have rules to check for the
> libraries as soon as needed etc, wouldn't this be good?
> Tests that are not needed for the configuration to be built
> would not even be executed (saving time).
>
What do you mean exactly by this? I might appear dumb, but
I'm having some difficulties in following you here.
> What important points did I miss in my consideration?
>
> oki,
>
> Steffen
>
Regards,
Stefano
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, (continued)
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Stefano Lattarini, 2011/01/12
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Xochitl Lunde, 2011/01/12
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Stefano Lattarini, 2011/01/12
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Bob Friesenhahn, 2011/01/12
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Stefano Lattarini, 2011/01/13
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Guido Draheim, 2011/01/13
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Ralf Wildenhues, 2011/01/14
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Steffen Dettmer, 2011/01/13
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make,
Stefano Lattarini <=
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Steffen Dettmer, 2011/01/14
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Stefano Lattarini, 2011/01/14
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Miles Bader, 2011/01/12
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Ralf Wildenhues, 2011/01/13
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Stefano Lattarini, 2011/01/13
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Peter O'Gorman, 2011/01/12
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Guido Draheim, 2011/01/13