Ed Hartnett <edh@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Sorry, I don't follow here. > Firstly, I recently switched a large package to libtool, and it didn't > seem to slow down the build all that much. It's true that it makes the > build output harder to read, but that's no big deal. On a modern Linux box with a decent shell, you don't really notice. On older Solaris and some more obscure systems (we had a developer using UX/4800 R11), it would slow down the build by a factor of three or more. > Secondly, the build is something that the user does exactly one time, > so what difference does it make if it takes longer? It's a one-time > cost. Uh, I actually develop my software, not just use it. :) > Naturally we all want things to be as fast as possible, but it seems > quite excessive to maintain two different build methods for a minor gain > in build speed in one of them. But I don't maintain two build systems, see. Autoconf is really cool that way. I have a little bit of logic in my configure.ac file and a little bit of logic in my global Makefile and everything else uses exactly the same make variables and just works. > Buy a faster workstation instead, it's a lot cheaper than extra > configuration maintenance. Thanks, I always like people to tell me what my development priorities could be in the absence of factual information about how much effort my solution is. :) -- Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
