[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Alternate automake output?

From: Bruce Korb
Subject: Re: Alternate automake output?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:56:24 -0700

William Robertson wrote:
> On 23 July 2002, Tom Tromey address@hidden wrote:
> | William> Good, except that configuration runs are abysmally slow.
> |
> | Have you enabled caching?  That is the first thing I'd try.  It will
> | help but won't solve the problem; each configure script has a certain
> | amount of unavoidable overhead; your particular configuration
> | multiplies this overhead by the number of modules.
> Caching definitely helps, but I also agree with the rest...

What if....

there were an installable "systemconfig" project and,
if present, autoconf could derive all the stock boilerplate
config stuff from that?  Sort-of a pre-installed system wide cache.
It would seem to me that anyone regularly building and re-building
packages would be really happy.  It might be prudent to split
"configure" into two files:  "configure" and "configure.boilerplate"
the latter only needed in the absence of systemconfig, but that
should be a nit design decision.

reply via email to

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