Re: [Vala] Vala autoconf macro

[Sam Liddicott <sam liddicott com>]

You just shot your argument when you said nobody cares about max length of command line argument.

Some people and systems do, autoconf works where wafs doesn't.

I'm not going to learn wafs and you seem to show it is less complete than autoconf.... :-)

I vote for autoconf anyway.

Sam


-----Original Message-----
From: Thijs Vermeir <thijsvermeir gmail com>
Sent: 19 August 2008 21:52
To: arto karppinen iki fi
Cc: vala-list gnome org
Subject: Re: [Vala] Vala autoconf macro

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Arto Karppinen
<arto karppinen mail suomi net> wrote:
> I agree that autotools is a difficult and obscure system that works by dark
> magic. Unfortunately, autotools does work everywhere, not just in most
> places, which is why it gets my vote.

I don't think there is currently a place where waf does not work.

> Besides, autotools is the defacto build system for G* things, so i think
> vala should use it.

Sorry, but that is not an argument for using or not using a build
system. You choose a build-tool to make your live easier as a
developer. If you know all the magic of autotools, fine use it. If you
don't know it, I don't think you should start learning it. Take a look
at the config.log file of a random project and look at what autotools
is checking, many are just absolute. (I think nobody cares anymore
about the maximum length of the command line arguments.) A more modern
build system does this more optimized and produces much faster builds.

Gr,
Thijs

> --
> Arto Karppinen
> ------------------------------
> arto karppinen iki fi
> _______________________________________________
> Vala-list mailing list
> Vala-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
_______________________________________________
Vala-list mailing list
Vala-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list