Josip Rodin wrote:
I personally have no problem with autoconf per se, configure.ac syntax in general tends to be fairly clear to me. But having N copies where we only seem to need 1? That sounds like a problem.
Yes. The repetition is annoying.
Also I think that this line of reasoning "it's apparent that it's odd, few understand it, yet it works, so let's either keep it or attempt to replace it completely" is problematic in and of itself. We must be able to fully understand our own code, and the requirements that led to it, in order to be able to both try to fix the problems in the existing solution *and* to be able to attempt a successful replacement. If we don't, it's likely that we're just going to end up repeating old problems and making things worse.
The existing code works (mostly). That's why it's still using an old version of libtool && libltld: I tried changing it, it was a PITA, and it had problems.
So it would be good if we could first get an authoritative opinion on whether support for subdirectory reconfiguration is actually necessary, or if perhaps it's a remnant of some other unrelated idea. Alan?
It's so that the modules are independent of the core. If you don't like a module "rm -rf" the directory. If you want a new one, drop files into a subdirectory, and the main configure/build process will find them.
I've had some experience analyzing auto*-based build systems on other things I've packaged, which seemed to result in them becoming less obfuscated, so I could have a crack at this one if it's possible.
If you can make it simpler, OK. Alan DeKok.