[lug] OT: Makefile oddity

[Ed Hill]

On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 13:03, D. Stimits wrote:
> Tom Tromey wrote:
> > 
> > Let me throw in a good word for autoconf here.  Autoconf isn't as hard
> > to learn as you've all heard.  The `autoscan' tool can help a lot.
> > There is a lot of documentation on Autoconf available on the web,
> > including a few tutorials, the reference manual, and of course the
> > autobook.

+1!

If you already understand make and sh, then automake/autoconf is fairly
easy to get working.  And there are *so* many great examples out there
(think of all the packages that are built with the autotools).


> Due to symbolic links and a number of other reasons, the code is too
> much of a mess to even think about it. The fact is that I don't own this
> code, and aside from a near guaranteed failure due to current state
> (which this arrangement will drastically improve), there is a zero
> chance of autoconf or m4 or any other tools aside from make being
> accepted.

Don't be too hasty to dismiss them!  Have you actually tried them?

While its easier to rely on the common "pre-made" automake/autocongf m4
macros for simple builds, you can put arbitrary complex shell scripts
within your configure.in and thus do all sorts of gyrations including
the handling of complicated soft-links.  Autoconf/automake have ALL the
functionality of hand-written makefiles and a lot more.

As a bonus, there are a number of folks on this list with experience
that you can ask for help.  I hear Tom has used them a bit...  ;-)

Ed


-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
Post-Doctoral Researcher   |  Email:       ed at eh3.com, ehill at mines.edu
Division of ESE            |  URL:         http://www.eh3.com
Colorado School of Mines   |  Phone:       303-273-3483
Golden, CO  80401          |  Fax:         303-273-3311
Key fingerprint = 5BDE 4DA1 66BE 4F7B BC17  3A0C 932B 7266 1E76 F123