[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