Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Consistency is important IMHO so you should have some very valid > reasons if you want to break the UI for building your software.
Indeed. More developers already know and use software with an autotools-based build system than anything else, at least in the open source world. > I think it is a good choice of word to call "autogen && ./configure && > make && make install && make clean" UI from this point of view I hope > the reasoning is quite obvious. If you agree 100% with Greg that autotools is so terrible, why then suggest a build tool use syntax that includes ./configure, which autotools uses but several other systems do not? The problem I have with your suggestion is only that autogen (or autogen.sh) (or is it gnome-autogen.sh ?) is not standardized at all! There is no even semi-formalized basis for creating such a script and naming it anything in particular, that I know of. This makes wiring the set of commands into ones fingers impossible... you have to retrain yourself for every single project -- precisely what automated build systems are supposed to avoid! Once you decide on using GNU autotools (which, BTW, your use of ./configure && make && make install above strongly suggests!), then there *is* a defined way to rebuild that build system. It is autoreconf. If there is a large body of developers whose fingers are already trained to do ./autogen.sh that is fine too... but I've not met them, not seen this convention documented anywhere, and no-one in this thread has pointed to documentation of it. By contrast, autoreconf is documented, both in the GNU Autotools docs and in various independent tutorials and print books about them. And man autoreconf works... man autogen.sh gives me nothing useful. Jonathan _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
