[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnu autoconf

Cory Bennett wrote:
> On Mar 13, 10:33am, Marcel Ruff wrote:
> >> You have testet it with SGI and Linux, possibly
> > Heinrich Götzger could cross-check it on his HPUX.
> >
> > If Heinrich has time to do so, he could contact you
> > to get the autoconf pieces.
> THere are a ton of little pieces for autoconf.  There needs to be a
> 'Makefile.am' file in each directory and configure.in file at the top level
> (and maybe more if there are sub directories which need a specialized
> configuration that cant be done via Makefiles.  There are some other extraneous
> requirements which automake needs before it can run like an "AUTHORS" and
> "ChangeLog" file.  Automake doens't actually uses those files, so I think they
> are required just to make distributions standardized.
> > Could you give C++ a try?
> > When all parts work fine we should add it to the xmlBlaster cvs tree.
> > What happens to the old Makefiles, we could throw them away then, right?
> >
> > The Makefiles currently do build the documentation as well
> > - doc/requirements for the Reference Handbook
> > - testsuite/org/xmlBlaster for Java code syntax highlighting
> > - xmlBlaster/Makefile for Javadoc
> I have not tried to build any documentation, and I dont know about hte syntax
> highlighting bit.  I am sure it is do-able.  But it will all take some time to
> investigate.  I wanted to make sure people were interested before I did
> anything more.

I am not shure which is the best way to go.

Ant is sufficient for pure java.

The C++ stuff is best handled with configure.
I like configure, because it just always
worked perfectly when i used in on many
different kinds of UNIXes.

On Windows, the configure does not work (i believe
only with the cygnus cygwin tools - right?),
what is the way to go there?

Our current GNU Makefiles were ported from
Peter Roth to cygwin, i don't know if they
work fine anymore.

When i develop xmlBlaster, i'm sitting at my Linux
box, using the make stuff, since i can compile
in the directory of interest only.

What is the way to go?

> > I often thought to cleanup the xmlBlaster root directory from all
> > build make etc. stuff over the next releases,
> > is it possible to put the autonf thingies into the xmlBlaster/conf
> > directory?
> Well, it might actually get more cluttered ... but in a more standard way :)
> The autoconf/automake requirements are pretty strict.  Many files need to be in
> the top level directory, so I dont think xmlBlaster/conf is an option.  We
> would be able to get rid of a few files, but probably be adding more.  But the
> files we would be adding are the ones people always look for anyway like
> 'configure'.

Ok, you are right, top level is the place where i expect configure as


Marcel Ruff
mailto:ruff at swand.lake.de