[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Simulavr-devel] patch: make bootstrap suggest a separate build dire

From: Onno Kortmann
Subject: Re: [Simulavr-devel] patch: make bootstrap suggest a separate build directory
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:54:51 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5

> >output. Consider that people may one day not check out from CVS
> >but use a source .tar.gz instead.
> I'm not trying to add more.
> I'm just trying to fix a bad doc.
Well, maybe my bad english confuses you:
I think that the bad (missing) docs are in 'configure' itself.
It should thus be fixed in, and not in bootstrap.

People may download simulavrxx.tar.gz with a pre-made 'configure'
from, and they will not see your message when
just calling 'configure'.

> As-is, bootstrap finishes with a direction to run ./configure .
> To me, that should be fixed.
I do this (with additional options) and it causes no problems for me.
What is your problem with simply calling ./configure?

> It's not clear to me that building in the source
> directory should necessarily be allowed.
I like to build in the source directory. So I think
it should be definitively allowed by the build scripts.
I'm no simulavrxx maintainer,
but I still like to voice my opinion here :-)

.. and I also think that a VPATH build should be supported. 

> The possibility doesn't bother me,
> but I think that it should not be a goal.
> It certainly should not be made to seem a requirement.
I rather understood the message from bootstrap as a hint
on what to do next for those who are not familiar with the autotools
bootstrap+configure+make process. But if it is confusing,
it should be fixed, I agree.

Best regards,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]