[BusyBox] autoconf stuff

Erik Andersen andersen at lineo.com
Wed Jun 13 09:35:29 UTC 2001


On Wed Jun 13, 2001 at 06:20:27PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> I know this has been considered and rejected before, but the build
> system is getting more complex since then, maybe its time to reconsider
> ?
> 
> Ive been reading up on autoconf and friends in the last couple of days,
> im no expert, but from what i see the autoconf tools might be really
> elegant solution if its done properly.
> 
> The one big drawback i think is that all the autotools add complexity
> which if the developers dont understand it might get in the way,
> especially if its not set up right. 
> 
> Im prepared to work in this direction if only for automating Hurd
> compiles.
> 
> Does anyone whos good with the tools have a more valuable opinion on its
> benefits as far as busybox goes ?

I have used autoconf and automake before.  They are troublesome
to use and maintain.  Furthermore, they will add a significant
amount of complexity with little benefit.

I know I do not want to type
    ./configure --with-cat --with-sh --with-<blah> --enable-verbose-help --enable<blah>

every time I go to compile.  That would be truly horrible,

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen   email:  andersen at lineo.com
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--





More information about the busybox mailing list