On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 21:20 +0100, John-Mark Bell wrote:
> > No, keep the build system! What I suggest is to include the
> > autoconf/automake
> > templates so that they can be activated on request. The templates by
> > themselves are harmless and do not stand in the way or interfere with the
> > build system. I need them because of my non-standard environment.
>
> Ok. That may be feasible. The only immediate issue I can see is that they
> may get out of sync.
The build system is something I'd really like to get completely
replaced. At the moment, it's somewhat organic. My main issues with it
are:
1) There's lots of repeated stuff.
2) Things aren't arranged clearly, but more arbitrarily.
3) It's spread over multiple files for reasons I can't fathom
4) It has errors that are ignored - why?
5) I still occasionally see it refuse to build because it hasn't
build a dependency.
6) I'd like "make" on its own to build a native version, and
providing a target to be the way to cross-build.
7) It has hard-coded paths for things like the RISC OS tool
chain.
8) It uses a flat file namespace.
9) It's unmaintainable because it's like working in treacle.
If I get some time this weekend, I might look into reworking or
replacing it.
B.
