[resend] Alan Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim: Some notes & questions: > > Please sanity check the README: in particular are the autotool > dependencies complete? > > I gather that once bootstrapped, make will take care of re-running > autoconf, automake etc as needed - is that correct?
Yes. > I had to downgrade autotool versions on fedora 6 with latest updates: > - configure.ac: autoconf 2.60 => 2.59 > - Makefile.am automake 1.10 => 1.9.6 > > I had only one problem possibly related to this: No abs_srcdir and > abs_builddir in Makefiles. Manually added to gen/Makefile.am and > tests/Makefile.am. Autoconf substitutes them but the automake template > doesn't have them. Right. That's because you downgraded automake. I'll make it work with older versions, too. > Building with APR via brutal hacks in the Makefile.am's, should have a > proper configure-based switch (e.g. -with-apr) that tests for the lib > etc. Right. That's on my list. Assuming we are stuck with APR. > Things remaining to do: > - generate RPM/SRPM > - run python tests from makefile if present. > - svn ignores for generated files. > - clean gen/* and generated make/config files. > - fix hacks for choosing APR/linux build (get rid of APR in medium term) > - doxygen > - easy selection of debug/release flags. > - fix signal handling in qpidd.cpp > - sundry renaming & cleanup which I might try to slip in during the > chaos. > > Philosophical question: I'm a fan of the Single Makefile approach > (http://www.pcug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html). Seems > to me that we could go that way with the autoconf build system, is > there any reason not to? It's not a priority, just thinking out loud. Those sound like two different things. You can have a non-recursive build system that uses one "main" Makefile along with lots of little pieces spread throughout the tree. Locality of reference arguments suggest that having a snippet of makefile in a few key directories (near the files they reference) is better than concentrating everything at the top of the hierarchy. Non-recursive Make is definitely a good thing. The current automake-based practice is slightly suboptimal because it ends up cutting the dependency tree -- e.g., between libraries and source trees. I don't know of any automake project with significant directory structure that has a non-recursive build, but do know of someone who has a patch for GNU make to make this sort of build a lot easier to set up.
