[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: |
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:21:54 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; ) |
On Friday 14 January 2011, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:39 PM, <address@hidden> wrote:
> > ``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.
>
> Maybe it is just a matter of terms, but I think the concept of
> "configuration" (as software configuration) is only about
> deciding which configure option to set or not to set; the
> configure run itself IMHO does not need to be separated from
> the rest of the building.
>
Oh, I see your point now. And I agree that your more granular view
might be useful and sensible.
BTW, when one starts thinking in these terms, a new terminology is
probably needed -- one that separates "software configuration" (e.g.,
setting of install directories, enabling/disabling of features,
etc.) from "requirements checks" (e.g., determining if and where an
external library or program is available, if the compiler supports
a determinate type, and so on).
> >> 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.
>
> Yes, except that automake->autoconf rules implement a "phase" or
> "stage" idea: when a "configure run" is needed, it is performed
> entirely. So it can be seen as separated where the build system
> can trigger the "configure run".
>
> >> 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'm not sure if this makes any sense, but I could imagine that if
> some file conditionally (enabled by some
> configure-as-in-software-configuration option) uses some feature
> which in turn depends on a platform function that has to be
> checked, then in this moment this single test could be performed.
> Let's say I used some --enable-tcp switch. The build system finds
> that in this case it needs tcp.o. By some depedency tcp.o depends
> on some have_socket_h.check_result file. The creation rule for
> this file invokes a test for <socket.h> and stores the result,
> which is used by tcp.o building in some way.
>
> If no networking would be used, this check would not even be
> executed. The test result is just an input like a BUILT_SOURCE or
> so.
>
> Maybe this would work in some way.
>
> oki,
>
> Steffen
>
>
Thanks for the explanation, this makes sense now. And you have
definitely good points.
Just a couple of clarifications about what I think:
- A user might want to run all the "requirements checks" before
starting to build the package (otherwise, what if the build
process punts halfway because a dependency is missing?). So
he must be offered this possibility (and it should probably
be made the default).
- All the results of the "requirements checks" should be
user-overridable.
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, 2011/01/13
- 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 <=
- 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