[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing
From: |
al davis |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:39:01 -0500 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; ) |
On Monday 09 February 2015, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> yes. it would still be good to have the useful fraction of
> this lot on our side. i don't believe in miracles, like an
> implementation without autotools. it's a bit sad that you
> want to get rid of it before we have a replacement -- no
> matter if it exists.
I don't want to get rid of it. I want to use it in a more
structured, more modular way, that isn't in the way.
Configuration should be a module that should not be mixed with
other things.
The 3-part makefile is something I came up with before autotools
existed, and I still believe it is the best way to go. It has
gotten messed up on its own over the years and needs to go back
to its roots.
The 3 parts:
Make1 is this project.
Make2 is configuration.
Make3 is boiler plate, always the same.
Originally I would hand edit Make2, and often I still prefer to
do that.
The way I want to use autotools is to generate Make2, and use
its version of Make3.
As it stands, it actually sort of does that, but then scrambles
it all up into a big mess, and scatters it all over the project
root directory.
The removal was because I couldn't figure out how to deal with
plugins properly, and it was easy with plain old make.
So how about a compromise .. Use autotools to generate Make2
and Make3. Clean up the fuzz. Encapsulate it, put it all in
one subdirectory to eliminate the clutter.
Actually, that suggestion is not a compromise. It is what
autotools needs to become truly good.