| RE: [AD] build process overhaul |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 10:42 +0000, Vincent Penecherc'h wrote:
> > Yes, true - so it wouldn't be an optimal solution. My main motivation
> > for automake is that so many projects seem to use it, so it can't be
> > that bad..
>
> Mostly to be able to build out of the box for more or less POSIX systems
> that are not "supported", I think. It would be a tall order for Allegro
> to be able to do that anyway :)
>
> But I'm missing something here: Allegro's not using automake already ?
> Is it using autoconf only maybe ? The configure script does mention
> it's been generated by autoconf.
Yes, it uses autoconf only.
> > > I don't like libtool. The command-line is hidden under a
> > layer of magic
>
> Same here. Apart from the "slow" argument, which I've not seen,
> but then I haven't tried to use it for my own stuff.
Yes, but the automake docs say that libtool is the best option (there's
a whole chapter on it, and not even a single mention in the whole docs
how you would specify a shared library without it).
> That said, I have nothing against the move.
Yeah, automake basically would only add auto dependencies, at least if I
can figure out how to prevent libtool. But, I'm now first waiting some
time for a scons build :)
--
Elias Pschernig