3 ms·
Autogen/autotools mess however... not so pleasant when it breaks. Curious for those who published source with autotools,etc... do you really sit down and figur
by _8j50 4y ago
Autogen/autotools mess however... not so pleasant when it breaks.
Curious for those who published source with autotools,etc... do you really sit down and figure that out. It's just a mystery that works or doesn't to me. I never have or would go beyond a simple make file. It really seems tedious on top of the actual code you write. A bit impressive tbh.
- jbboehr 4y agoYes, I used autotools[0]. It's definitely hairier than plain make, but you get a lot of useful features on top of it. There's thousands of examples all over the internet so it's easy to reference them. I like the elegance of pure make, and do use it when appropriate, but I wouldn't really want to reimplement the things autotools does myself in it. [0]: https://github.com/jbboehr/handlebars.c/blob/master/configure.ac https://github.com/jbboehr/handlebars.c/blob/master/configur...
- LtWorf 4y agoWhat's the alternative? I don't know in advance if the system's seek() supports 64 bits directly or just 32. Or if the user wants a more minimal binary without a certain feature.
- UncleEntity 4y agoCmake? Once I figured out how to get it to build python extension modules my life became a lot simpler. The python way (distools?) is easy enough until it isn’t then I reach for cmake.
- LtWorf 4y agocmake is not as powerful as autotools.