From: Alexandre Oliva (oliva@dcc.unicamp.br)
Date: Sun Jan 10 1999 - 22:14:51 EST
On Jan 10, 1999, Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> wrote:
> Godmar Back writes:
>> If you're not able to bring the cvs repository in a working state, I would
>> like you to unroll all automake related changes by Wednesday. I am opposed
>> to making Kaffe's build environment a playground for alpha-testing some
>> half-baked tools.
> A great idea that's half-baked is still only an idea.
Neither automake nor libtool are half-baked tools. Some very large
projects, such as Gnome and KDE, are using both, and have been using
the for quite some time.
The problem seems to have been that I decided to use some features of
automake and libtool that aren't still widely available, but that have
made the migration job much easier.
If I were to compare automake with libtool, I'd say automake is much
more stable than libtool, but its job is much easier, since there is a
known subset of features from shells and makefiles that are portable,
but there's no such set of features regarding shared libraries and
dlopening. That's exactly what makes libtool hard to implement and so
nice to use. And modules and libltdl, for example, have only recently
been introduced in libtool, so we are, definitely, `boldly going where
no man has been before' :-)
But automake works and it is in no way connected with libtool, so,
even if we decide to stop using libtool for a while, until it gets
more stable WRT to modules and dlopening thereof, it would still be
nice to keep an `--enable-libtool' configure option that we could use
for libtool. Automake conditionals make it possible for us to
maintain both in a reasonably simple way.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org}
oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org}
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:35 EDT