3 ms·
Autoconf has never really made sense to me in the last twenty years or so. At what point does a Makefile-based project start thinking "hmm, we should upgrade to
by parasti 3y ago
Autoconf has never really made sense to me in the last twenty years or so. At what point does a Makefile-based project start thinking "hmm, we should upgrade to autoconf to solve this"? And what is "this" that they can't solve any other way? Seems like that point never occurs anymore. Either projects start with autoconf or they don't.
- kergonath 3y agoTo me, the point is when something I write has tor each for BLAS or LAPACK and every single user seems to want it to work with a different library (ATLAS, OpenBLAS, MKL, Accelerate.framework, vanilla BLAS, cuBLAS)… Then, combine that with the various FFT libraries flavours, wherever the fuck hdf5 and NetCDF are, and which goddamned version of MPI they want to use. Not mentioning some computers where they insist on using Intel’s compilers. Or, dog saves us, Cray. Getting this to work is a major pain, we cannot expect the users to figure it out themselves, and we cannot list all the possible combinations in a Makefile. We tried several fancy build systems, and every single one breaks in more or less subtle ways.
- parasti 3y agoThat's a valid use case. Your users operate in their own diverse environments and you explicitly want to support them where they are.