Re: autmake & debian? (was: Re: cron jobs more often than daily)
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, David Frey wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5 1998 20:08 +0100 Christian Schwarz writes:
> > > Automake does support the GNU standard, a less restrict one, and (perhaps)
> > > the gnits standard (the new GNU standard). Will there be automake support
> > > for Debian packages ?
> [...]
> > However, doubts have been presented that it does not fit exactly to
> > our purposes. Someone would have to do some
> > experiments on this. If it doesn't fit, we can use or write another macro
> > generator.)
> I played over the christmas holidays with autoconf and automake (for use in
> my rpncalc package). My conclusions:
> - the generated Makefiles and configure.in's are too strict: e.g.
> a) they require that the COPYING (GPL) file is present,
> b) they test whether the cc is gcc (which we already know it is),
> c) they test whether the libc-headers are ANSI-compliant (which we
> already know they are)
> d) they test whether the signal returning type is void (which it is and
> should be)
> etc. ad nausaum.
> Shortly put, most of the test are appropriate for SunOS 4 but not for Debian
> (GNU libc2, gcc, POSIX.1 and nearly X/OPEN compliant) and are a waste of time.
> Of course, some m4 guru could put together an Debianized set of autoconf
> macros...
Automake is much less strict if invoked with the --foreign option. As for
all the various autoconf tests, so what if it tests for stuff we know is
true? It is what makes everything more portable to whatever you want it
to compile on.
--
Scott K. Ellis <storm@gate.net> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: