From: Nicholas Bailey <n.bailey@el...> - 2005-02-21 16:57:30
Before I say anything else, I'd like to mention I love python (our
website is written with mod-python!) and hate autoconf (one of my RAs
spent ages fighting it when we were working on Ardour).
> Chris Cannam wrote:
>> On Monday 21 Feb 2005 15:45, William wrote:
>>>> or will you be switching to scons ASAP?
>>> Already have :)
>> No, we haven't. It's only under test.
Oh no! Left hand, right hand, not talking... :))
> I know :) What I meant was Dougie will find HEAD is now based on
> Anyway, Dougie, if you're following this thread, don't be put off from
> continuing to use autoconf/automake -- scons is only in HEAD.
I propose we get all of the automake stuff working again, and then use
it for our work. The reason being that I suspect it'll be easier to
make Mac ports fly. All of the fink stuff relies heavily on autoconf
etc, being basically dpkg. Also, I'm just guessing now, but maybe a
working autoconf system will be favoured by packagers (of course no
developer in their right mind would prefer it even to being forced to
enter the build lines manually. On a 75B serial line. With a toggle
switch) who will all be jumping to release RG1 for red hat, debian,
mandrake, etc etc etc.
>> It looks appealing, but for all
>> we know it could yet prove worse than automake.
that would be quite hard, eh?
> IMHO the bksys documentation is very limited.
> I'd probably be more impressed by the scons/bksys system if I could
> get it
> to build RG even once without stopping at every config.h.
This frightened me away too. Although actually I quite like yellow text
The automake docs seem to be very comprehensive, if incomprehensible.
Anyway, I believe Dougie's completely fixed the automake/autoconf
issues now, so it'd be a shame to waste it :)
PS: any Mac developers listening? Can we correspond about RG native for