Re: [Srcpd-devel] What should be changed in the future

[Matthias T. <mt...@we...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

soe...@us... schrieb:

> Regarding cmake insteed of autoconf:
> 
> 
>> 1. cmake insteed of autoconf
>>     autoconf is complex and difficult to maintain.
> 
> Why is it difficult to maintain ??

Over the years were some changes in autoconf. We
had to repeat them in our code base (I recently
had to update the config.guess file). And I remember
the troubles for the change away from the long-term
stable 2.13 autoconf to something newer very well.

I really like the idea of cmake to separate the build
system, both the tool aspect (how to check which version
libxml provides etc) and the build aspect (srcpd is build elsewhere
away from the source tree).

And I doubt that the flexibility of the autoconf suite is really
needed for the srcpd. He may never run AIX or HPUX or Hurd.

And last but not least: cmake needs only one control file. autoconf
needs a few more..

Anyway: cmake is only one and not the most important point.

>>     autoconf needs own _code_ within the srcpd source tree
> This is not correct. I have a project where I was planing to create a C
> ++ lib to allow easy access to the SRCPD.

What do you want to do? Which aspect of the srcpd needs
easy(er) access?

Bye
Matthias
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHMsLo9bEHdGEMFjMRAvdnAKCYqtF4T9UdKBgvvKnmVzE/ax/yqwCg9hgx
NyVl7Xc0lAo2TXWEZCU+4lM=
=kmiW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----