Re: Rant against automake
From: inquirydog (inquirydog_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/27/04
- Next message: inquirydog: "Re: Rant against automake"
- Previous message: William Park: "Re: Robotic Telescope System - Talon"
- In reply to: Måns Rullgård: "Re: Rant against automake"
- Next in thread: Ron Hardin: "Re: Rant against automake"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 27 Nov 2004 14:23:00 -0800
> > I actually have a love/hate relationship with automake....
>
> So you do too?
I take it this is a common reaction then. Too bad the Linux
community doesn't fix automake. Why do you dislike it?
> Take a look at AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR. It lets you place all those files
> in a single directory of your choice.
Thanks- useful information. Part of the reason I posted this
is to get suggestions on how to fix my problems.
> > 2). Error checking with automake is not that great. I
> > recently spent too much time trying to figure out why certain files
> > were not being installed. My bug was stupid- instead of using
> > bin_SCRIPTS, I missed the S (bin_SCRIPT). Automake didn't catch this
> > and report it as an error to me. Almost never can automake catch
> > typos.... I think this is because automake allows random lines of
> > code to be placed directly in the makefile and I think this is a
> > mistake for this very reason. You should have the ability to send
> > random code to the makefile, but you should specify this explicitly.
>
> There's always a tradeoff between being nice to beginners versus not
> getting in the way of the experienced user.
I would think that experienced users would want this type of
error checking though. It is sort of like strongly vs. not strongly
typed languages. Most Advanced users prefer c/java style type
checking because they know the alternative is to spend hours looking
for silly typos.
> > 4). Automake is too tied in with certain particular tools and
> > methodologies. It forces the user to also work with autoconf, very
> > strongly pushes the user towards the gnu license, and enforces a very
> > particular filestructure. In many circumstances this isn't a good
> > thing. On my last project we were building software for a Linux based
> > appliance box, it was 100% clear that we would never run the software
> > on anything but Linux (and given the growing marketshare that Linux
> > has in the Unix community this is probably going to be more common
> > over time).
>
> There is just as much variation among Linux installations as there is
> between different Unix flavors, so using something like autoconf can
> be a good idea, even if you only intend to run it on Linux.
There is much variation, but certain constants that really
would solve all of my compiling issues. Binaries are always pointed
to by PATH, libraries by ld.so.conf or LD_LIBRARY_PATH. The gcc
compiler is nice enough to tell me if something is missing. Perhaps I
am leaving something out but certainly this is 90% of all that is
needed.
> > The final clincher was with the LICENSE file. Automake
>
> I take it you are referring to the COPYING file.
Sorry, you are correct. I was typing from memory.
> > autogenerates this and the remaining required files if you run
> > automake with an "a" flag. Following various tutorials on the web
> > this is exactly what we did for a while, until someone took the time
> > to read the files that were generated- LICENSE is a copy of the GNU
> > license. We had accidentally opensourced the whole project! Not
> > that it was a real issue as our source code was under lock and key,
> > and I doubt that a request to see the code would stand up in any
> > court, but still it was an eye-opener.
>
> Agree fully. It would be interesting to see the reaction if some
> program started silently placing some other license in peoples
> packages.
Yeah, slashdot would pummel Microsoft if VisualStudio did
something similar.
> > 6). Automake doesn't have a smart editing tool yet (something
> > that is more and more expected as time goes on). I believe it would
> > be a good idea to make Makefile.am be in xml format and include a
> > Relax NG schema so that in nxml options could be presented as the
> > user types.
>
> NO!!!
>
> If you want an xml based build tool, take a look at Apache Ant.
I use ant also- for java programming. It isn't quite what I
had in mind though- It just turns Makefile style commands into xml
elements. I was referring more to something more on the level of
automake than Makefiles- instead of getting a set of instructions of
the build process, it would just contain a list of file to be built
and the files needed to build them. I used to write Makefiles, but it
is tedious to need to rewrite each target (compile, link, clean, dist,
etc) for each build. With ant the same problems exist (albeit with a
more enjoyable editing experience since you can use a schema to remind
you of the proper syntax).
I am baffled why so many people are so against xml- Using
schemas and standardized tools writting xml is much easier than
unformatted (or randomly formatted) files.
> > It is not fun to go back to the manual all the time to remember if
> > it is bin_SCRIPT or bin_SCRIPTS. Eclipse and VisualStudio
> > programmers are laughing even louder at the Linux crowd over time as
> > their tools become even better.
>
> It's strange, then, that their programs are still so inferior in all
> respects.
Do you use those tools. By far eclipse blows emacs away
(except for the fact that it is a resource hog and slow). I have used
emacs as my promary editor for many years now, and also consider
myself proficient in vi, pico, notepad, word, and wordpad. When I
started using eclipse earlier this year I was amazed at the time that
it saved. It allows me to autocomplete objects (yes, I am aware of
the half baked etags implementation). It catches syntax errors on the
fly and offers options to fix those mistakes. It refactors, it
generates template code. For java programming I simply don't want to
use emacs anymore.
thanks
-I
- Next message: inquirydog: "Re: Rant against automake"
- Previous message: William Park: "Re: Robotic Telescope System - Talon"
- In reply to: Måns Rullgård: "Re: Rant against automake"
- Next in thread: Ron Hardin: "Re: Rant against automake"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
