Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 19:06:32 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: pav@freebsd.org Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> Subject: Re: An autoconf bikeshed Message-ID: <m31wv7krqf.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <1146907329.72215.5.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> (Pav Lucistnik's message of "Sat, 06 May 2006 11:22:09 %2B0200") References: <200605041507.08581.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <200605051346.39823.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20060505175533.GA3384@xor.obsecurity.org> <200605051414.02384.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <1146867318.62735.9.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060505200804.I49507@orthanc.ca> <1146907329.72215.5.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org> writes: > One major drawback of using autotools is that every distfile grows about > 250 kB of repeated code. With modular X, that's a lot of bytes to > transfer. Unless you make automake, autoconf and the rat's tail of requirements requistes and stop shipping the repetitive "configure" and "Makefile.in" bloat - essentially this still wants to work on every trash shell. I'd rather see autoconf 3 use shell functions even if that impairs portability. It's not like developers (all my projects like bogofilter, fetchmail, leafnode use autoconf and automake) were very fond of the bloat that auto* entails, but it's a standardized way, easy to customize at configure or install time and porters are rather well-acquainted with it. > As for developers use, I'd say much more people today are familiar with > autotools then with imake. Imake is a dying beast. Going with mainstream > is always good to get more people involved. How true. -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m31wv7krqf.fsf>