On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 06:09:33PM +0100, Nico Golde wrote: > Hi, > * Kurt Van Dijck <[email protected]> [2009-03-19 17:53]: > > I'm in the process of cross-compiling dwm. I understand the idea of > > having a config.mk for this, but it is not the easiest. > > Since I had to fix some other packets too, I learned myself to setup a > > minimal autoconf. This allows one to do: > > ./configure && make && make install > > > > Since dwm is distributed as a source package and not binary, I suspect > > this can mean a serious improvement. > > EPIC FAIL! > Please read the FAQ: http://suckless.org/common/faq I agree as a developer. a 'config.mk' approach, I understand. I didn't even walk all FAQ's to get the job done :-)
As a user, I'm not that convinced. ./configure is easier to explain that Makefile. What I learned from the automake/autoconf docs is: 1) autoconf allows easy test, suitable for users. 2) ./configure script is big :-( 3) automake starts the real mess, using libtool etc. I chose (for this & other projects) to stick to my own hand-crafted Makefiles, supported by autoconf. Some advantages of this approach: * The core Makefile(.in) is still readable as developer. * applying different --prefix, --host or DESTDIR gets easier. * configuring is done as any other package. * testing for necessary libraries gets easier on different platforms. Not all systems use glibc. MacOSX wants -liconv for iconv support, .... . Those are reasons I started with this 'limited' autoconf support. Applying this to dwm didn't seem like huge job. Kurt > > Cheers > Nico > -- > Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - [email protected] - GPG: 0x73647CFF > For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.
