Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng 2.13-rc1

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday 05 July 2007, Bryan Henderson wrote:
> >i dont see how blaming autotools for other people's misuse is relevant
>
> Here's how other people's misuse of the tool can be relevant to the choice
> of the tool: some tools are easier to use right than others.  Probably the
> easiest thing to use right is the system you designed and built yourself.
> I've considered distributing code with an Autotools-based build system
> before and determined quickly that I am not up to that challenge.  (The
> bigger part of the challenge isn't writing the original input files; it's
> debugging when a user says his build doesn't work).  But as far as I know,
> my hand-rolled build system is used correctly by me.

which brings us back to the package maintainer maintains the autotool source 
files, not joe blow user.  if there's trouble with the build system, then the 
maintainers (who are knowledgeable in autotools) are in a pretty easy 
position to fix/address it.  as you've stated, hand rolled build systems work 
great for the guy rolling it, but beyond that all bets are off.  util-linux 
had a hand rolled build system that fell apart in many places.  the 
maintainers of util-linux have well versed autotool people at their disposal, 
so i really dont see this as being worrisome.

> > > checks the width of integers on i386 for projects not caring about that
> > > and fails to find installed libraries without telling how it was
> > > supposed to find them or how to make it find that library.
> >
> > no idea what this rant is about.
>
> The second part sounds like my number 1 complaint as a user of
> Autotools-based packages: 'configure' often can't find my libraries.  I
> know exactly where they are, and even what compiler and linker options are
> needed to use them, but it often takes a half hour of tracing 'configure'
> or generated make files to figure out how to force the build to understand
> the same thing.  And that's with lots of experience.  The first five times
> it was much more frustrating.

the large majority of time, i find this to be trivial: read config.log.  but 
this comes with familiarity with the tool and autotools is sitting by far the 
best right now.  if you're having trouble with the package in question, just 
ask on the mailing list and post your config.log; i'm sure you'd get someone 
to readily point out the answer.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.