Around 22 o'clock on Jun 22, Dominique Dumont wrote: > In case of a "big jump", is autotools the only alternative to imake ? There are a few other alternatives that I know of, but I want to avoid ending up supporting yet another marginal build tool. I'm pretty comfortable with automake at this point; it's easy to add new pieces once the basic libraries are added. I suspect we'll want to create some x-specific .m4 files and distribute those as well so that we can shorten some operations while making them more general -- in particular, I'd like to allow automake applications to compile on imake-built libraries, and this will probably entail some kind of library location macro which uses pkg-config where available and falls back to xmkmf where not. I think it's important to use the defacto standard unless that standard is significantly insufficient for the task; branching out to non-standard tools may be reasonable for marginal packages, but X does need to build in a lot of weird places and I'd hate to see X developers once again solely responsible for making the the build tools work. > At work (HP) we moved rather slowly from a homebrewed system based on > make to a build system based on cons. It's important to realize that we're trying to avoid making an irrevocable decision here; once the tree is modularized, there's no reason independent packages must all use automake in the future. Every maintainer should get to choose what tools they want to use. -keith
Attachment:
pgp_ru4c6OvfX.pgp
Description: PGP signature