I don't think there needs to be many levels, so hopefully it won't be
too recursive. I think we should encourage flatness for the sake of
simplicity, etc. Something like this:
Pd-extended build
while section builds (pd, externals, etc)
individual lib builds (zexy, cyclone, etc.)
.hc
On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Bryan Jurish wrote:
> moin Hans, moin all,
>
> yes! (that is: yes, autotools are weird; yes, autotools are not so
> bad;
> yes, I think they could be used for the whole build system; and yes,
> I'm
> interested) One thing to watch out for with big recursive auotools
> projects would be outrageous costs for re-generating (autoreconf) rsp.
> re-configuring (./configure) the whole build tree.
>
> wow... who'd've thunk jury duty could be so productive?
>
> marmosets,
> Bryan
>
> On 2009-03-27 13:48:27, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans(a)eds.org>
> appears to
> have written:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I had to do jury duty on Wednesday, and they had free wifi while we
>> waited, so for some reason that inspired me to try writing a complete
>> autotools build system for Pd-devel. It builds Pd now, but there are
>> some issues with the sound APIs that need to be sorted out.
>>
>> I would appreciate feedback from anyone who is interested. After
>> this
>> experience, I am thinking that autotools are weird, but not so
>> bad. I
>> think that we should use them for the whole build system.
>
> --
> Bryan Jurish "There is *always* one more
> bug."
> jurish(a)ling.uni-potsdam.de -Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic
> Entomology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is
publicity. - Bill Moyers