configure output summary

[John Dennis]

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/