On Monday 09 February 2015, Felix Salfelder wrote: > yes. it would still be good to have the useful fraction of > this lot on our side. i don't believe in miracles, like an > implementation without autotools. it's a bit sad that you > want to get rid of it before we have a replacement -- no > matter if it exists.
I don't want to get rid of it. I want to use it in a more structured, more modular way, that isn't in the way. Configuration should be a module that should not be mixed with other things. The 3-part makefile is something I came up with before autotools existed, and I still believe it is the best way to go. It has gotten messed up on its own over the years and needs to go back to its roots. The 3 parts: Make1 is this project. Make2 is configuration. Make3 is boiler plate, always the same. Originally I would hand edit Make2, and often I still prefer to do that. The way I want to use autotools is to generate Make2, and use its version of Make3. As it stands, it actually sort of does that, but then scrambles it all up into a big mess, and scatters it all over the project root directory. The removal was because I couldn't figure out how to deal with plugins properly, and it was easy with plain old make. So how about a compromise .. Use autotools to generate Make2 and Make3. Clean up the fuzz. Encapsulate it, put it all in one subdirectory to eliminate the clutter. Actually, that suggestion is not a compromise. It is what autotools needs to become truly good. _______________________________________________ Gnucap-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucap-devel
