[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:56:37 -0600 (MDT) |
Here's a quote from "another list" that illustrates a problem with the
auto* approach to release mgt:
> I'm looking at trying to get autoconf to detect the right version
of
> BDB (need to export some SVN_FS_GOT_DB_MAJOR variants), and
getting
> the checks just right probably exceeds my amount of free time that
I
> can dedicate to this.
I do not see that this indicates a fundamental problem, only
that there is work to be done to handle hard situations.
The graph of interproject dependencies, including version-specific
dependencies, is very complex -- bordering on intractable.
Do the developers of autoconf believe this is true?
The de facto bootstrap tools don't have that problem -- they don't
depend on much at all.
Therefore, handling them is fairly easy.
Supporting their builds is an entirely
different problem from supporting the builds of everything else.
One fork for those bootstrap projects -- another for everything else.
This conclusion does not follow. Given that we are trying to handle
"everything else" anyway, perhaps it is easies to do what we are
doing, and handle the bootstrap projects with the same autoconf and
automake.
Unless the developers of autoconf and automake agree with you and
favor this sort of split, I will not encourage it.
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Paul Eggert, 2002/10/15
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2002/10/18
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Tom Lord, 2002/10/15
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects,
Richard Stallman <=