3 ms·
>And no, “just use autotools” is not a viable answer. After packaging hundreds of programs for a GNU/Linux distro and dealing with handwritten Makefiles and ot
by davexunit 10y ago
>And no, “just use autotools” is not a viable answer.
After packaging hundreds of programs for a GNU/Linux distro and dealing with handwritten Makefiles and other so-called autotools replacements: Yes, it is.
If you want someone to be able to build and install your software, just use the Autotools. Yup, they are ugly, but they're still the only set of tools that works acceptably.
- radarsat1 10y agoNot only that, but every time I'm up against a problem building software that uses something else, it's like, "oh great now I have to figure out what their secret badly-documented variable names are and how to configure their XML/JSON/YAML/whatever" It's a pleasure when autotools is used because in generally I know it's going to be nothing much more than > --with-stuff/--without-stuff and > --prefix=$HOME/.local and when it's not, at least I know I can just grep the shell script and figure it out pretty quickly without having to learn a whole new programming language.