On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 09:02:15PM +0200, Elazar Leibovich wrote: > You gave a very good history lesson about the need and reasons for > autotools. > > The thing is, many of the software written now, is not intended to run on > HP-UX framework. I'm not a Unix expert, but maybe modern unices are more > POSIX compliant than in the past. > > So I think developers prefer to write a more strictly POSIX compliant > application, and to need a simpler building process and have a single set of > source files, than to use non-portable functions and to be forced to use > autotools. > > For example, I'd rather implement hton* myself, then checking for this > function's existence with autotools. > > A good example for such a project is http://re2.googlecode.com It uses plain > makefile, supports a few unices, and is fairly complex.
Nice. 'make distclean; make' fails there. I had to see in the makefile I need to enable something that requires internet access. Now that's distro-friendly. Looking at the makefile I noticed you use there 'ifeq ($(shell uname),Darwin)' What if I want to cross-build? Do I have to override 'uname' in the PATH? In fact, the C++ compiler is g++ explicitly in some parts. Though you define on the top CC=g++ (HUH? CC? Not CXX or CCC?) . But then again, you use it to compile .c files as well. Yeah. You have your own hand-crafted Makefiles. With the only special-case of Darwin. No need to be portable. -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il | | best tzaf...@debian.org | | friend _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
