Re: automake & autoconf

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Godmar Back (gback@cs.utah.edu)
Date: Sat Jan 09 1999 - 06:10:19 EST


>
> > This is unacceptable/a bug - do you agree?
>
> Yep, this is a know problem in `cvs update'. `cvs checkout' does the
> right thing, since it sets all the timestamps as they are in the
> repository, but it's not reasonable to do a full checkout all the
> time. `cvs update' should be able to keep timestamps relatively
> consistent, but it doesn't; I think Cyclic people are already aware of
> the problem, but reporting it again wouldn't hurt :-)
>
> egcs people have created a script that can be used to update the CVS
> tree, that ensures that autoconf/automake-related files are updated in
> the right order, so that their timestamps remain consistent. We might
> do something similar for Kaffe. What do you think?
>

I think autoconf is a piece of complicated software. I don't even know
automake. I hate it if essential .in files get changed underneath me
just because I type make.
I hate it when I have to set my path such that /usr/loca/bin overrides
/usr/bin so that I pick up perl5 instead of perl4.

What is this distinction about developer vs. other makefiles?
Shouldn't this be mentioned in the FAQ/FAQ. files?

Quite frankly, we had a build environment that worked, and I would
be somewhat dissatisfied if the switch to automake will give us
a) less control over what happens there
b) all the sudden subjected us to limitations that we weren't subjected before:
    + like no files from other directories.
    + like having to use gmake for developing.
    + like not being to link certain libraries.
    + like needing special scripts to accommodate "bugs" in cvs checkout
      that did *not* bother us before.

Anyway, please convince me.

Please don't misunderstand this as bickering; I really think that more people
with similar setups as I have will get into the very same problems --- take
Edouard as an example.

How about if we made it such that if you check kaffe out and do a
./configure; make, it will work as it used to work? I.e., not touch
any .in files and only require a normal make?

        Godmar


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:33 EDT