Subject: Re: Build system
From: Aaron Lehmann (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jun 17 2000 - 15:50:36 CDT
Building makefiles for you IS one of the things that autoconf does.
According to my experimentation last night, when gcc is told to build
dependencies, it IGNORES the pathname to the object file. So, running "g++
-Wp,-MMD,.deps/.ap_Ruler.pp -o ../../../myplatform/objs/ap_Ruler.o -c
ap_Ruler.cpp" will produce a makefile rule for ap_Ruler.o. NOT
../../../myplatform/objs/ap_Ruler.o. And even if I edit this by hand to be
the path to it, make seems to be ignoring the rule.
My point is that it seems like Abi's build system will have to be
redesigned to work right with dependencies. gcc and make are expecting the
.o files to go in the same directory as the source files, for some reason.
My feeling is that if we do have to redesign the build system, we might as
well use something that already exists. Autoconf really sucks but at least
it works once you get it running. Perhaps more importantly, I know how
to set up autoconf but I don't know how to script makefiles to have
equivilent functionality and am not very excited about learning more
about makefile syntax. If anyone has suggestions of alternate build
systems, I would be more than happy to check them out. I hate autoconf as
much as anyone else.
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Eric W. Sink wrote:
> Switching to autoconf will mean that you have to mess with makefiles
> more, not less. Autoconf solves a certain class of problems, but
> getting you away from make and its attendant legion of makefiles
> is *not* one of them.
> Eric W. Sink, Software Craftsman
> SourceGear Corporation
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Jun 17 2000 - 15:50:43 CDT