Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Autotools needs a POSIX shell... and for development, better have GNU
gcc, make, sed, awk, m4, bison, probably others... for ANY project of
non-trivial complexity (maybe even for trivial complexity, since I've
never tried to develop an auto* project on a non-Linux platform).
POSIX shell certainly. gcc and GNU make definitely not.
How are dependencies calculated?
GNU m4 should only be required when the developer is modifying
configure.ac, not when the user is building.
...which was one of my points. With autotools, the dependencies for
actual development are more than for building, thereby increasing the
difficulty of transitioning from user to developer. With CMake, it's
often possible to require nothing but CMake and the necessary compilers
(and a make tool, which doesn't need to be GNU), but regardless, once
you have the *build* prerequisites there is nothing additional needed to
move from being a mere consumer to more active participation.
GNU sed, awk, and bison I'm
a little fuzzy in my memory but I don't believe the GNU versions are
required. Better to ask an autotools guru about that, though.
Ideally, no, but I'm pretty sure I've run into the odd problem where
some package doesn't build correctly in the absence of one of these
(besides which you need /some/ version of sed and/or awk much of the
time). Since CMake can in many instances replace the need for these,
it's one less area of potential bugs, and for systems that don't already
have sed/awk/etc (e.g. Windows, or other non-UNIX-like platforms),
needing only CMake vs. needing sh, sed, awk, etc is fewer dependencies.
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Microsoft, electricity, network connectivity. For a secure system pick
any two. -- Iain D Broadfoot (paraphrased, from cluefire.net)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
