[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
to autoconf or not (was Re: Multi-OS Makefiles)
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: to autoconf or not (was Re: Multi-OS Makefiles)
- From: Chuck Yerkes <chuck+obsd_(_at_)_2004_(_dot_)_snew_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:20:19 -0700
Quoting Ted Unangst (tedu_(_at_)_zeitbombe_(_dot_)_org):
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, Darren Reed wrote:
> > This is the first time I've ever had anyone say that autoconf is hard
> > to use/understand. I can only put it down to you having some bad
> > experiences with it?
> i find that remarkable. but i'll add a second. i find auto* hard to
> use/understand. in fact, i don't, so i don't use them.
Yes, it's hard and complex and ugly.
But clearly many of you are not recalling having to edit a bunch of
Makefiles and .h files after thoroughly reading READMEs and INSTALLs
and spending a day or two learning the details of a program.
Even Perl's "Configure" was a welcome step up
("is your machine big endian or little endian?").
Early compiles on the Alpha involved lots of porting work (no, an int
is not the same as a pointer).
The benefits of having a package under autoconf are huge compared
to "edit the makefile and hope the author actually understands the
variety of platforms out there."
Plus it's good to have on a resume.
Visit your host, monkey.org