Subject: Re: safe make replace?
To: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/28/2005 18:18:56
[ On Friday, January 28, 2005 at 07:58:30 (-0500), Todd Vierling wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: safe make replace?
> I fail to see how what is essentially a compiler wrapper script is any worse
> off than automake makefile fragments.
Oh, but if that were all libtool was. Sigh.
Have you actually dug your head into that spaghetti lately?
It's one of the worst nightmares of self-configuring state machine shell
script that I've ever seen. It makes the Autoconf M4 macros look trivial.
Like I said, the X11 Imake rules have almost got it right (except for
the fact that they come along with all the other Imake baggage). They
are effectively just a set of compiler wrapper scripts too, but yet even
though they include a lot of Imake overhead they are much, MUCH, smaller
than already single-platform-configured libtool script.
> A compiler frontend script is far
> more flexible to use, actually;
How many frontends do we have to have in front of the compiler before we
end up with nothing but overhead?
> it permits usages outside the scope of
> automake, which is too policy-foisting for many folks.
I kept using the phrase "automake like" for a reason....
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org> Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>