configure output summary

Alan DeKok aland at
Thu Nov 18 17:16:03 CET 2010

Josip Rodin wrote:
> I personally have no problem with autoconf per se, 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.

More information about the Freeradius-Users mailing list