lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] C implementation [was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved]
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2011 04:29:46 GMT
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:42:33PM -0600, Peter Karman wrote:
> Is there anything to be gained by using autoconf and friends?
> Or asked another way, why would we *not* want to use autoconf and friends?

Since the C API is going to be Unix only, the only objection I have to using
Autoconf is that... it's Autoconf. ;)  Have at it!

So long as you aren't suggesting *replacing* Charmonizer with Autoconf, we
have consensus and we can move forward.  (If OTOH you want to replace
Charmonizer with Autoconf, prepare for a long, bloody, morale-sucking battle.)

> I realize that it duplicates a lot of what charmonizer does.

Doesn't matter so long as we don't rely on it for that.  In particular, it
doesn't matter so long as we don't introduce Autoconf into the build process
for Lucy's other host bindings.

> OTOH, automake can generate a fully-featured Makefile like Module::Build
> does for Perl (I know M::B doesn't create a file called 'Makefile' but the
> concept is the same).

I understand what you're getting at.  If you're most comfortable using
Autotools for the Unix C bindings, cool by me -- other Unix C devs are also
going to feel comfortable with them.

Marvin Humphrey

View raw message