On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:36 PM, <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com> wrote: > - I think that keeping configuration and build steps separated is > a very good idea.
Do you mean this is a good idea in the context of todays systems - or - Do you mean this is good idea in general and could be a design criteria for future build environments? I think I agree to the first (mostly because I assume if the autotools developers and experts separate those steps, they do it for a good reason), but I don't understand my this could be a requirement in future systems. Wouldn't it be great to type "make" which automatically knows by depedencies that some configuration rules have to be executed (i.e. to determine facts about the environment if they are not available in form of small .h files or alike)? If, for example, Makefiles would have rules to check for the libraries as soon as needed etc, wouldn't this be good? Tests that are not needed for the configuration to be built would not even be executed (saving time). What important points did I miss in my consideration? oki, Steffen
