Re: problem with subdir-objects and not found .Plo files when migrating to 1.14

[Sergey 'Jin' Bostandzhyan]

On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 10:53:26PM +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>     I wonder why the authors of automake would try to restrict different and
>     actually valid usage scenarios? I've been using this setup for over 5 
> years
>     in different projects, I'd be really disappointed if I had to switch to a
>     setup that is much more inconvenient for me.
> 
> 
> Because trying to be clever and special with build systems is a bad way to 
> make
> a build system. Distributions will dislike you and it's much less likely that
> they'd like to package your software.
> 
> If I were to find any problem with the build system of your project, I would
> stop looking the moment I find the silly "build" directory, and decide that
> it's not worth packaging at all.

Interesting opinion, however, just an opinion and not a fact. I've been
using the same "build" approach in MediaTomb and we got packaged for almost
all available distros. Not once have I heard complaints about the build
directory, and why should I anyway? Packagers don't care about things like 
that as long as "make install" works properly and respects ${prefix}.

Besides that, their most trouble is usually finding dependencies which
are in different places on different distros, and that piece of magic is in
autoconf/configure anyway.

> Don't be special, don't be clever. Use out-of-tree build if you want and 
> behave
> consistently with other projects.

Well, so far I have not heard a single technical argument on why I should
not be doing things that way.

"Very bad idea" and "don't be special" qualify for arguments of personal taste,
and that's what I love Linux for: it gives you the freedom to do things the
way that is most productive to _you_. Actually, if noone was ever clever and
special we'd probably be using MS DOS.

Consistency - maybe - but if *imho* the default way is consistently
inconvenient, why should I be following it within my projects? As long as
I don't break the rules to the outside, i.e. have a properly working
make install / make dist / out of tree build support - I don't see why I 
should not be allowed to organize my build they way that suits me most within
my tree.

And it's not like I am hacking automake and doing weird things with custom
make targets etc., I'm using the default feature set that is provided, what's
wrong with that?


That being said, I have the feeling that this discussion does not lead
anywhere, I was hoping to hear some technical arguments on why it is bad
to have a build setup like I do, but so far I have not heard any.

I'd like to thank you once again for your initial reply as it did help me
to overcome the problem that I originally had.

Kind regards,
Jin