Yep... the make step is decently fast. But I almost never just remake without for some reason having to reconfigure. This is probably because of my own file-hygeine habits which date from the 80s, so not relevant to anyone else.
cheers Miller
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:55:46PM +0100, Dan Wilcox wrote:
On Jan 9, 2018, at 6:17 PM, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote:
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 09:17:49 -0800 From: Miller Puckette <msp@ucsd.edu mailto:msp@ucsd.edu> To: IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig@iem.at mailto:zmoelnig@iem.at> Cc: pd-list@lists.iem.at mailto:pd-list@lists.iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] pd-0.48.1 trouble getting started Message-ID: <20180109171749.GB32197@elroy.localdomain mailto:20180109171749.GB32197@elroy.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Yes, FYI I'm still using makefile.gnu. It takes about 25% as long to do the job as the automake thing does, and when it fails I can usually figure out why.
The configure step is slow but the actual make part is usually not much slower than a plain makefile since automate generates plain makefiles. However, the configure step gives you easily configurable build options, system checks, library checks, and a helpful configuration output print at the end.
Dan Wilcox @danomatika http://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list