Hi Cristian, On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Cristian Rodríguez <crrodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > El 03/02/14 07:54, escribió: > >> On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 11:52 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: >> >>> I *might* be open to switching to something like >>> cmake >> >> [...] something *sane* like cmake [...] >> >> (FWIW, don't even argue that part about auto*, it's decidedly not sane >> to have a build system that needs roughly two dozen versions installed >> concurrently to build different software) >> >> johannes >> > > Well, unfortunately we disagree on everything. cmake is NOT sane though I > could write an equivalent in few minutes, read the book, been there, done > that.. it sucks. > > Autotools does not require two dozen versions installed to build anything, > this is a apparently an insanity found only in debian distributions. > > Looks like I am going to stop wasting keystrokes about now..people who have > similar opinions invariably do not understand the problems faced by > distributors or packagers. Opinions will always differ. Is there some way that the makefile could be improved / simplified to meet your goals / requirements without a complete automake based rewrite? I understand that custom makefiles can be a maintenance burden, but if you could describe the exact issue you're having, and maybe propose a less invasive patch, you might get a more positive response. (By "invasive", I mean increasing the build dependencies, not necessarily changing a lot of code.) Another option could be to add an automake build system in parallel with the current make based one and offer to maintain it. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
