[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: autoconf



Hi,

On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 05:46:59PM -0700, Andrew Morgan wrote:
> I'm not pushing the autoconf stuff as hard as others. I had a scheme for
> using autoconf: see the Linux-PAM-0-72-autoconf branch on sourceforge:
> 
> > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/Linux-PAM/?cvsroot=pam&hideattic=0&only_with_tag=Linux-PAM-0-72-autoconf#dirlist
> 
> which autoconfs the creation of two files in the top level directory,
> which get included by every makefile (Make.Rules) and c-files
> (pam_aconf.h). This sort of mirrors the defs/* file approach we have at
> present and reflects my general bias against having too much automated
> source generation, but uses autoconf to do local configuration.

I definitely prefer this approach.
The reason is that it makes makefiles more readable.
At my opinion, makefiles are the face of a project.  They should be
readable, simple and close to what they really should do as much as possible.

> 
> Steve and David have been advocating a more traditional autoconf route
> which turns every Makefile into a Makefile.in and autoconf gets to build
> every Makefile. They seem to have more energy than I do so I'd say
> they're approach is winning by default.
> 
> > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/Linux-PAM/?cvsroot=pam&hideattic=0&only_with_tag=autoconf-modules
> 
> If anyone wants to help with either effort, their suggestions, patches
> etc., will be welcome. [Although, given David and Steve's general
> distaste for my approach, I'll need some positive feedback to invest
> more effort into it.]

Best regards
		Andrey





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []