httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <...@engelschall.com>
Subject Re: Apache 2000, err Apache 2.0 gets real
Date Sun, 01 Aug 1999 14:04:48 GMT

In article <Pine.WNT.4.10.9908010927420.-381311@lerdorf.raleigh.ibm.com> you wrote:

>> It's correct that Automake is a benefit to deal with _very large_ source
>> trees. And there it's great. There it's clear - already from the software
>> engineering point of view - that one has to use a tool in order to avoid
>> reinvention of the wheel in every subdir. But there are easier and smaller
>> tools available which do the job better then Automake, IMHO. At least they
>> generate cleaner Makefiles which look like hand-made and can be still be
>> understood and better customized. For instance I often used my own very-old
>> SMake (Skeleton Make) tool or some similar approaches.
> 
> I guess it depends what you consider a very large source tree.  We
> switched to automake for PHP4 to make it easy for people to add and
> maintain new modules without needing to know anything about the build
> process.  The Makefile.am file in each module directory is only 3 lines
> long.  For example, for the snmp module it is:
> 
>   INCLUDES=@INCLUDES@ -I@top_srcdir@ -I@top_srcdir@/libzend
>   noinst_LIBRARIES=libphpext_snmp.a
>   libphpext_snmp_a_SOURCES=snmp.c

Yeah, sure. If we decide that each module gets its own subdir and Makefile,
Automake becomes more interesting. At least when you still can live with the
fact that Automake's generated Makefiles are not really nice ones ;). With
large source trees I usually mean source trees with 20 or more subdirs.

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com

Mime
View raw message