[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: configuring libltdl

From: Russ Allbery
Subject: Re: configuring libltdl
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:37:14 -0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp, linux)

Bob Friesenhahn <address@hidden> writes:

> The issues I mention are primarily philosophical and religious.  There
> is a subversive element of open source society that is willing to use
> Autoconf and Libtool, but not Automake.  The FreeType and libJPEG
> projects come to mind.

Yup, I'm in that category too.  Automake makes a bunch of assumptions
about how a package will be organized, requires one generate all of one's
Makefiles with configure (thus making the configure step and rerunning
config.status just painfully slow), works poorly with non-recursive make,
and generates incredibly ugly and unreadable Makefiles and compiler

It does a lot of nice things too, but if you already have a build system
that works, switching to Automake doesn't really have a lot of
justification and has definite drawbacks.  libtool, on the other hand, is
pretty easy to just drop in to a regular Autoconf with hand-written
Makefiles environment (I've done so on several occasions).

> If AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is used, then Automake must be installed in order to
> maintain the package, even if the dependent package uses JAM, GNU make,
> BSD make, Imake, or hand-coded traditional make.

This I'm not too worried about.  I generally have Automake around.  Just
as long as I don't have to use Automake for the package itself when I use
libtool, I think this is fine.

Russ Allbery (address@hidden)             <>

reply via email to

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