On Thursday 13 January 2011, Steffen Dettmer wrote: > 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? > The second one. But TBH I don't have any objective justification for this, only "gut feelings". So I should better have said:
``I truly dislike the idea of not keeping configuration and build steps separated.'' Maybe I'd just like a system that *allows* me to keep configuration and build steps clerarly distinct if I want to. Yes, that would be enough for me I guess. > 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)? > Yes, but then, this could be implemented by having the build system call the configuration system properly, no? More or less like is done by automake-generated rebuild rules, just "on steroid" I guess. > 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 do you mean exactly by this? I might appear dumb, but I'm having some difficulties in following you here. > What important points did I miss in my consideration? > > oki, > > Steffen > Regards, Stefano
