On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <p...@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > -------- > In message > <CABoVN9DKswgGkEVQ+Jb-HUvx1PNyyPc0o5+nrzZ=r732q9g...@mail.gmail.com> > , Dridi Boukelmoune writes: > > Yes, we are probably poor users of autocrap. > > But I don't want to make excuses for that. > > We're trying to build 8 small binaries, three static and four dynamic > libraries. > > We should not have to even think about build infrastructure *at all*. > > *It* *should* *just* *work*.
I'm afraid compilers don't make it easy when it comes to just working and portability. At least on the dependency management side pkg-config does a great job (if *.pc files are properly written). > And that is why I want to get rid of autocrap: It doesn't just work, > not even close. There are things from autotools themselves and from the autoconf-archive that certainly don't just work, or even work. >>Also please note that Guillaume once submitted a patch for a >>non-recursive automake build, which I think would also help contain >>the complexity^Wmadness. > > Absolutely, and I'd love to have that going in. So what's the goal? Are we still getting rid of autocrap? > The only change I ask is that each of the lib/bin subdirectories > have a trivial makefile along the lines of: > > *: > cd ../.. && make $(*) > > (no, make(1) doesn't grok that, but you get the idea... Yes, although make's design was very spot on IMO it also lacks many useful things today. As for myself, I haven't felt the need to cd into a sub-directory for a long time, so I would no longer hurt from having a single Makefile. Dridi _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev