On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:46:51PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > not to go way off topic for this list
Ah, if you start advocating one way, it's only fair that people advocate the other way. :) > autotools tends to work a lot more reliably than > $random-build-system-of-the-day. That's a testimony to the suckiness of $random-build-system-of-the-day, not a proof that autotools work well. They don't. They probably suck less than most of the things you see, but they still suck. One simple example: I could *never* make autotools understand that I wanted to compile natively for i386, *but* wanted to use the diet libc instead of the glibc. Never. To make it work, I had to use horrible hacks that would make your ears bleed. I'm still ashamed of those today. > the amount of plumbing busybox has to make it work is not trivial. it's > certainly not something most projects should pick up. I agree with this. It has to be done right, which is hard. Busybox does it right. autotools do it better than uninformed, naive attempts, so they're a reasonable default solution when better alternatives are unavailable, but that doesn't mean they're good. (And yes, I have written my own cross-compilation system. It's far from perfect, but it works.) -- Laurent _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
