Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Build System links/ recommendations

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 11:53:47PM +0200, Jan Hudec wrote:
> > > So you suggest having two different build systems, one for development
> > > and one for instalation?
> > 
> > If you need to install on old or freaky systems, yes. It is virtually
> > impossible (and certainly impractical) to have a development-grade
> > build system for a complex project that also works on HP-UX 9, SunOS
> > 2.6, or similar shit - not to mention a waste of time.
> 
> But it's exactly what automake is designed to do...

For *simple* projects, like most of the gnu set. For complex ones you
tend to break that, and just use modern features in your extra rules.

> > With a little ingenuity you can generally fold them together such that
> > you don't have to update two things in parallel all the time. autoconf
> > and automake do it reasonably well.
> > 
> > [I don't actually bother to construct such a thing unless there's a
> > demand for supporting freaky old systems, though]
> 
> There would be in this case. Guess which version of make is in current
> stable debian... Right: 3.79.1-14. 
> 
> (Note: The project I was talking about was started in 2001 -- the
> feature did not exist back then.)

Other approaches exist. This is the one I use. I'm not very familiar
with the others; I'd have to spend a couple hours working it out, and
I really don't have the time.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature