Re: Autoconf/Automake

From: Phil Richards <news@derived-software.ltd.uk>
Date: Jun 15, 2006, 20:10 UTC
Message-ID: <20060615201000.600939E2BC@derisoft.derived-software.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20060615133146.GA5794@steel.home>

On 2006-06-15, Alex Riesen <fork0@t-online.de> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

>  Yann Dirson, Thu, Jun 15, 2006 09:24:50 +0200:
> > Since there are many people objecting to autotools, what about using
> > Jam instead ?  It has the advantage of being designed to be
> > cross-platform, and should have all the features we would need for *git.
>  Except that it is not readily available everywhere, has unreadable
>  and illogical syntax, and lots of unknown assumptions built in.
>  We are forced to use that thing at work, and it is mostly hated.

FWIW, I like Boost and use it every day.  I hate bjam.

Show 6 quoted lines

>  Git already has enough external dependencies (crypto, Python, Perl,
>  bash, gmake), why create another one?
> 
>  If we are about to need a configuration system (and I doubt it), may
>  be we should at least select a system small enough to have it always
>  in git repo? (yes, as linux kernel configuration system is)

Well, since Python is already a dependency, why not use a build system that has Python as its scripting/extension language? It's also quite small, and it's called SCons. I found it rather easy to learn when I was having a quick look around at alternative build systems.

Just a thought.

phil

-- 
change name before "@" to "phil" for email