On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 07:51:01PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> The benefit is to divide the code into libraries and core which is >> easier to maintain and reuse. > > I'm not sure I understand what's so hard about "compile stuff, use > 'ar' to pack into libopenvpn.a" that stuff needs more convolutions. > > We're not building a shared library - which I agree is major pains unless > handled by libtool. But static libraries are easy on about everything > (except Windows, can't speak about that).
libtool has the advantage of making it very simple as far as build is maintenance is, in all platforms in exact same way. It also will enable us to build the plugins properly in future. Even if you do what you suggested (ar), the gcc command-line will be long as we need to add the additional CPPFLAGS, LDFLAGS. >> Anyway, new automake does support silent rules, try the following[1] >> patch and see if it makes you happier. > > This is missing the point: I think what automake/autoconf is doing now > is much too complicated. I *like* to see what it's doing, and hiding > complexity by just not showing it is a step into the wrong direction. When you like, use "make V=1", or --disable-silent-rules to configure. > >> Again, this demonstrate how current merge procedure is inappropriate, >> as instead of single build system rewrite merge we have aftershocks. >> Branch should be tested and reviewed, and tested and reviewed until >> no known issues found, and all happy of its quality. > > We're doing that now: branch is called "master". Nope, this is not the rule of "master" branch. "master" = as much stable as possible, not playground. Alon.
