Re: Future plans for Autotools

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:30:37AM -0700, John Calcote wrote:

Hey John,

> 2. The Autotools are actually more transparent than any other build tools
> out there. All these other tools' (cmake, maven, etc) - that purport to be
> so much simpler because they insulate the user from the underlying details
> of the build process - these tool's primary failure is that this very
> insulation keeps users from being able to make the changes they need to
> accomplish their unique project-specific build goals.
> 
> Anyone who has nothing but good things to say about this aspect of cmake,
> maven, gradle, or whatever, has simply not worked on a project that
> requires them to move far enough away from the defaults. I've used them all
> and I've spent hours in frustration trying to determine how to work around
> the shortcomings of some "do-all" (except what I want) tool function. This
> is simply not an issue with the Autotools. As someone mentioned earlier in
> this thread, you can drop shell script into a configure.ac file, and make
> script into a Makefile.am file. That is the very definition of
> transparency. No other tool in existence allows this level of flexibility.

This is a very good point and one in which I completely agree. In fact, it's such an important 
point that I thought it prudent to share it with others in our Wikipedia article:

  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Autotools#Responses_to_Criticism>

> The most interesting feedback I read in the responses was that the
> Autotools had an appalling lack of documentation which - ironically - is
> actually not true. At the risk of sounding self-serving, I'll say this: in
> the research I did for my book (Autotools, No Starch Press, 2019), I
> primarily (95%) used the GNU Autotools documentation as reference sources.
> The information is all there and actually very concise - too concise
> sometimes. The problem with it is two fold.

I had no idea you released a second edition! I've kept the first on hand for years. I will add 
this to my wish list.

-- 
Kip Warner -- Senior Software Engineer
OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred
http://www.thevertigo.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux USB]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux