[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Build System links/ recommendations

From: Andrew Suffield
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Build System links/ recommendations
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:15:26 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040818i

On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 11:53:47PM +0200, Jan Hudec wrote:
> > > So you suggest having two different build systems, one for development
> > > and one for instalation?
> > 
> > If you need to install on old or freaky systems, yes. It is virtually
> > impossible (and certainly impractical) to have a development-grade
> > build system for a complex project that also works on HP-UX 9, SunOS
> > 2.6, or similar shit - not to mention a waste of time.
> But it's exactly what automake is designed to do...

For *simple* projects, like most of the gnu set. For complex ones you
tend to break that, and just use modern features in your extra rules.

> > With a little ingenuity you can generally fold them together such that
> > you don't have to update two things in parallel all the time. autoconf
> > and automake do it reasonably well.
> > 
> > [I don't actually bother to construct such a thing unless there's a
> > demand for supporting freaky old systems, though]
> There would be in this case. Guess which version of make is in current
> stable debian... Right: 3.79.1-14. 
> (Note: The project I was talking about was started in 2001 -- the
> feature did not exist back then.)

Other approaches exist. This is the one I use. I'm not very familiar
with the others; I'd have to spend a couple hours working it out, and
I really don't have the time.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' : |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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