21 ms·
I'm baffled by the choice of using the GNU autofools chain just to include a Doxygen target in the Makefile. The whole thing is essentially straight up C with j
by wyuenho 13y ago
I'm baffled by the choice of using the GNU autofools chain just to include a Doxygen target in the Makefile. The whole thing is essentially straight up C with just 1 library dependency.
The command line argument processing is also quite haphazardly done, it's not like it using getopt or whatever that poses compatibility issues. Is writing and packaging with a Makefile that difficult?
- nodata 13y agoSubmit a patch. Show them how it could be better.
- hyc_symas 13y agorm -rf sparkey apt-get install lmdb
- blippie 13y agoWe used to have a "simple" makefile, but once we started to support multiple development environments (OSX, various Linux flavors) it got more and more complex. Autotools actually brings a lot of functionality as part of the package and is what people expect. I'm no fan, but it works for our use case.
- tinco 13y agoThey wrote a database to solve an operational need. From experience I can tell you that's an endeavour you should strife to spend as little time on as possible. I think it's a miracle they produced something they feel comfortable sharing with the world. If you write a database in house, and the tool chain and the argument processing are the only things done haphazardly, then hats off to you :)
- wyuenho 13y agoWhoa I sense passive-aggressiveness :) I'm still waiting for those benchmarks. The code is very clean and simple I was just picking bones. The use case seems to be overly specific tho. Is there any other example use cases where this library could be useful?