configure output summary
John Dennis
jdennis at redhat.com
Thu Nov 18 14:48:38 CET 2010
On 11/18/2010 08:21 AM, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I've actually been a bit confused by the notion of having separate autoconf
> installations/invocation in multiple subdirectories. The point of that would
> seem to be that if you just want to reconfigure and rebuild one particular
> part, you can do it.
>
> But who ever does that?
>
> It seems to me that everyone only ever wants a single autoconf instance for
> the whole tree, which can generate all the subdirectory makefiles.
>
Yeah, I've never quite understood that either, but it works which at the
end of the day is what matters most even if it seems odd.
If someone ever does decide to work on the build tools I wonder if it
might make sense to abandon autotools. I've used autotools for years and
it's been a love/hate relationship. I love it when someone else has done
the work, but hate it whenever I have to create new autotools
functionality or it breaks (which sadly is often) and I have to debug
it. It's baroque complexity is daunting and it often suffers from
versioning issues.
FWIW, a number of projects I have some involvement with are switching
over to CMake. It's still to early for me to give a report card on
CMake, but it's an interesting trend.
--
John Dennis <jdennis at redhat.com>
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/
More information about the Freeradius-Users
mailing list