[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: progress of Subversion autoconfiscation

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2000-07-15 13:40:49 CEST

On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 12:00:04AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 11:43:16PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > Zack Weinberg <zack@wolery.cumb.org> writes:
> > > ... so what needs to be done? I have to confess I don't see much that
> > > -needs- autoconf to do anything for it, since all the icky stuff is
> > > being dealt with in apr and/or glib.
> >
> > Hmm.
> >
> > Folks, Zack's got a point. Part of the reason we have apr (glib is
> > probably going away soon) is to isolate a lot of the portability
> > issues into one already-written library. I sort of started
> > autoconfiscating out of instinct... but now that you mention it, maybe
> > we don't *need* to do it at all.
> It is probably still useful for things like finding the compiler and
> setting up installation paths. But I am firmly of the belief that the
> less you put in your configure script, the better.

True on all points. Autoconf will be handy, but we aren't going to have a
bazillion items in there. It should be pretty straightforward.

> One problem we'll have to solve is shared library generation. A trick

APR should/will be able to give us this information.

The other alternative is to use libtool.

> > > Is there any chance I can convince y'all to use hand-rolled
> > > nonrecursive Makefiles instead of automake?
> >
> > Yes, on that there's a very big chance you could convince us :-).
> > I've definitely had some second thoughts about the wisdom of going
> > with automake in the last few days, and am now leaning toward
> > hand-rolling Makefiles (or `Makefile.in's, as the case may be) instead
> > of using automake. Whether they're recursive or not is a matter of
> > style; you can have hand-rolled recursive Makefiles too.
> I happen to be a big fan of nonrecursive make, but the subversion
> layout - to the extent I understand it - could work okay with
> recursion too. You've not got a hairy mess of cross-directory
> dependencies the way gcc does.

It would be interesting to try a non-recursive make in a project. I haven't
done it yet, but I have skimmed Peter Miller's paper about it:


An interesting paper, at least.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:05 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.