httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Malo ...@perlig.de>
Subject Re: PATCH: call aclocal for PCRE in buildconf
Date Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:36:59 GMT
* Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 08:05:53AM +0100, Andr Malo wrote:
> 
> > oops. (Who the hell named that tool aclocal?!)
> 
> It was probably named that way to promote confusion.  Sane people would have
> called it amlocal instead.  *shrug*
> 
> > > No, it's not.  I purposely don't install automake.
> > 
> > I'd be really interested in the reasons.
> 
> automake corrupts the build process by forcing us to give up control without
> solving any fundamental problems and introduce a lot of needless complexity
> and bugs into the build system.  I wouldn't let any project that I hate use
> it.  It's awful.  Greg and I and others have posted to dev@httpd in the past
> as to the problems introduced by automake.
> 
> One of the many concerns is that it has logic to sporadically invoke
> autoconf and configure from the build process, which really can put a dent
> in one's life.  Following capricious rules that are rather illogical can
> reduce the chance of that happening (but not eliminate), but it's easy to
> fall into the trap.

Ok, these are all reasons not to use the AM mechanism. But not to install on
the system to run a clean aclocal?

> 
> > > -1 as we can't (won't) make httpd depend on automake.
> > 
> > Just to be fair, we would make developers depend on automake, not httpd.
> 
> There are very, very, very few things that cause me to say '-1' off the bat.
> automake just happens to be one of them.
> 
> > > Please find some other way to address this problem.  -- justin
> > 
> > I'd guess, something like apr-util/xml/expat/buildconf.sh does? As you
> > refuse to install aclocal, it could be your favorite task >:->
> 
> If we import a new PCRE tree and we need to tweak their build system, then
> we can do that.  But, introducing a dependency on automake isn't an
> acceptable solution.  -- justin

In fact you should tell that the library we distribute. *It* (PCRE) depends on
automake (i.e. aclocal only!) in newer versions. The clean way seems to me
either to shrug and accept it, or to leave the lib alone and use the one
installed on the system.

I'm really wondering, what you suggest, when PCRE someday comes with a set of
Makefile.ams ;-)

nd
-- 
s;.*;aaaaaoaaaoaaaaooooaaoaaaomaaaa:a:alataa:aaoat:a:a:a
maoaa:a:laoata:a:oia:a:o:a:m:a:o:alaoooat:aaool:aaoaa
matooololaaatoto:aaa:o:a:o:m;;s:\s:\::g;y;mailto:;
\40\51/\134\137|ndparker <nd@perlig.de>;;print;

Mime
View raw message