Re:Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]
by ndmitchell on Monday April 11, 2016 @04:12PM
(#11474716)
The old GHC build system did do everything in 3 phases. And they were pretty magic phases. It's not clear there's any upper bound on the number of phases, and maintaining each phase separation is very tricky.
Re:Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]
by technion on Sunday April 10, 2016 @12:25AM
(#11464892)
I was working on a CentOS 6 box not long back and it's shocking just how many big projects you pretty much can't build. Not because they didn't write portable C, but because they have requirements on a minimum version of autoconf, which is later than shipping under CentOS 6.
Re:Non-Recursive Make Considered Harmful [pdf]
by gnufx on Sunday April 10, 2016 @01:55PM
(#11467342)
autoconf _shouldn't_ be relevant to building, rather than maintaining the project. (I know you can't always get a proper release in this day and age.)
In some cases you do need to re-autoconfiscate, which is why EPEL6 has autoconf268 (from RHEL7). Otherwise there's a software collection with up-to-date autotools, though you might expect them in the devtoolsets.
And, besides: a huge impediment to improving the state of build systems is that new build mechanisms won’t be installed on most platforms by default. If you must explore new ways to build, be sure to implement that in terms of what is already there (Perl/Python/whatever) and make sure to ship your new build system WITH your code.
When I download some "neat-project-1.0.tar.gz", the last thing I want is to have to futz with setting up your special build system that Probably Nothing Else uses or will ever use. If it’s not in the tarball, I will already lose a lot of interest; I know most things can "configure, make, make install" in minutes but I don’t know how much time will be wasted installing whizbang-build-0.1 first and I probably won’t even try.