On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 06:50:46PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 17:45, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) > <vanmeeu...@kolabsys.com> wrote: > > Ondřej Surý wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 17:59, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) > >> > >> <vanmeeu...@kolabsys.com> wrote: > >> > Thomas Jarosch wrote: > >> >> Hi Дилян, > >> >> > >> >> here's some feedback about your build system question. > >> >> Note: I'm not one of the cyrus core developers. > >> >> > >> >> > if I rewrite the build system of Cyrus imap 2.4(.10) to use Automake > >> >> > to generate the Makefile.in-files, will the patch be accepted in > >> >> > reasonable time in git/master? > >> >> > >> >> Have you considered alternatives to GNU Autotools? > >> >> > >> >> We have experience with GNU Autotools in our company projects as well as > >> >> open source projects for several years now. > >> >> > >> >> We have found that it has several shortcomings: > >> >> > >> >> 1. Autotools version conflicts > >> >> > >> >> You can compile a released source package without any Autotools on your > >> >> system. But as soon as you > >> >> > >> >> a) want to develop > >> >> b) want to install a patch which modifies the build system (like a new > >> >> path to a library, something that adds a new file,...). This is often > >> >> happens as part of packaging for .rpm or .deb. > >> >> > >> >> you need Autotools on your machine. If the Autotools version on your > >> >> machine and the one used to build the release are not compatible you > >> >> can't build. > >> >> > >> >> Installing a different Autotools version on a given distribution without > >> >> breaking something or fixing a huge list of dependency problems is > >> >> nearly impossible. I have experience with this... > >> > > >> > I have quite the experience with .rpm and .deb building myself as well, > >> > and while I agree autotools *can* be problematic at times, I recon the > >> > Linux distributions are not the biggest of problems - the culprit, I > >> > think, is with the number of custom / site-specific builds out there, > >> > ranging from Sun Solaris to FreeBSD and who knows what versions of > >> > autotools are on these systems. > >> > >> With my fancy debian maintainer hat on - I agree, we learnt how to cope > >> with different versions of autotools, that's the minor thing. > >> > >> I personally I would love to have cyrus projects automakized. It's much > >> easy to mangle :). > >> > > > > Between the two of us, Debian and Fedora maintainers, are we both saying > > "yes > > please, no objections"? > > I am even saying: "Yes, please, no objections. I will send patches."
Excellent, then it will be committed!