[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] Migration to automake; (was: Tiny make patch: avoid Netpbm d

From: Keith Marshall
Subject: Re: [Groff] Migration to automake; (was: Tiny make patch: avoid Netpbm dependency)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:23:41 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0

On 13/03/14 17:13, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> Well, I will not be participating in that;
> :-)
>> it's a personal view, but I firmly believe that automake *creates*
>> more problems than it solves
> Which ones?  Maybe your biased view is related to mingw?

Not entirely.  I freely admit that it is a mostly subjective preference,
but when the use of automake inflates the size of a source distribution
in excess of twofold, for zero functional gain, one feels compelled to
ask "why bother?"

>> -- indeed, I don't even understand what problem it does solve.
> Out of my head:
> . It automatically generates all the necessary targets in the
>   Makefile.

Depends on your definition of "necessary".  It's certainly very good at
obfuscation, through multiple levels of excessive redirection.

> . It ensures correct dependency handling.

What does this mean?  GCC tracked dependencies?  They are trivial to
manage, without all the bloat and obfuscation of automake.

> . Integration of gnulib is very, very simple with automake.

Let's not go there.  Personally, I consider gnulib to be grossly -- and
hideously -- over-engineered, and bloated by needless dependencies.

> . It ensures that only the documented files become part of the
>   tarball.

Provided you've documented them accordingly, within; this
can also be achieved within, while avoiding the bloated
overhead of automake.

> . In `gnits' mode, it takes care of a lot of distribution stuff that
>   is very is easy to forget.

For example?


reply via email to

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