Re: Intent to hijack Bacula (Heads up, Get The Facts!) (long)
Quoting =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgTHVpcyBUYWxsw7Nu?= <email@example.com>:
> John Goerzen wrote:
> JLT>I was "reprehended" by Turbo Fredriksson due to the amount of
> CPU wasted. He cared to contribute some patches which, after being
> integrated and enhanced --as much as i could-- by me, form the current
> build system.
> My original build approach (in 1.32f6) used the method you suggest. That means that I can do it "properly" (using your own terms).
> However, Turbo and PMHahn (and some others, too), advised me to change everything.
> Turbo himself warned me of a better way to do it on March 2nd/3rd 2004, and pointed me to #196802
> I completely rewrote the build system based on their input and got it working. My sponsor, rover, also appreciated it (its speed, mostly).
> This means that there are DDs which approve of this approach as well as there are some who disprove of it. It can't be that bad, then.
My 2 euro cent here.
Sorry for not showing interest sooner (I HAVE followed the thread from start!),
but it's been a little to much ... flaming.
I have no objections to the policy complains. If they are there, they should
be fixed. They aren't that difficult to fix and wouldn't take to long...
But regarding the build system, I REALLY object to any major changes! Fixes yes,
but not REPLACEMENT!!
The first build system really sucked. It took AGES to build, and that
on a 'not-so-slow' machine (2x750MHz Ultra SPARC III, 2Gb mem and FC disks).
A better, more dynamic way of building was needed. The simplest way of doing
this was just build it ONCE and then only compile and link that stuff that
Yes, the 'hardcoded' library stuff isn't the most perfect, but paying attention
to this when a new version is out, it will work. If one could come up with a way
of automatically detecting this WITHOUT running 'configure' from scratch, that
would be NEAT!