On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 07:09 -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 08:57:11AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > I agree, however, that there is nothing _fundamentally_ evil about > > There is a lot fundamentally evil about autotools, it uses perl to start > with. Except that you personally seem to hate Perl and apparently feel like having to reiterate your opinion, it's an implementation detail, not of any importance to it's function. BTW: perl is the least problematic part of the autotools. The most problematic ones are shells and m4, plus people outsmarting themselves by abusing the autotools. > > autotools. Autotools don't kill cross-compilation; people do. Autotools > > just seem to make it easy. > > Autotools also makes it extremely hard to debug a cross compilation problem. How that? > Neither does it deal with repeatability, consider what happens if you cross > build a package during beta and it works then native build it during final > and it doesn't. And how is this problem related to the autotools? Use 2 different build directories and appropriate host/build/target tuples and you're done. > The vaguaries of the compiler and cross compiler suite can > cause this to bite you very occasionally. Sure, ... this would you hit with other buildsystem in the same way. > It would be good to be able to cross build Fedora, if only for slow old > architectures and embedded where its pretty essential. Sure. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
