[BusyBox] autoconf stuff

[Erik Andersen]

On Wed Jun 13, 2001 at 10:51:56AM -0500, David Douthitt wrote:
> Erik Andersen wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> My understanding of these is that they offer the ability to use
> seamless (and largely canned) multi-CPU support: you don't have to
> wrangle with whether it is Solaris or Linux or Irix or FreeBSD; I was
> of the understanding that autoconf and automake took care of a lot of
> that for you.

Right.  And they are nice when you have an app that links vs bunches of
libraries on bunches of different systems, where those different systems may
have they libs and header files in all sorts of strange places.

BusyBox, by design, only links with the C library.  So the ability to find
strange libraries buys us nothing.  BusyBox only compiles and runs under Linux,
so the ability to compile under Solaris or Irix or FreeBSD isn't going to buy
us much at this point.   Furthermore, automake/autoconf make the process of
cross-compiling a bit trickier.  Lastly, automake autoconf are IMHO slow, and
poorly suited for programs with large numbers of configuration options.

> 
> I've not used autoconf and automake as a developer, but from what I've
> seen and heard they're supposed to be the greatest thing since sliced
> bread.  Certainly does make it easier to compile, usually.  Also
> "saves" people from having to edit a configuration file and such.

I plan on moving to a CML[12] based configuration system after 0.52
gets released, which should allow people to never have to edit another
configuration file...

 -Erik

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