[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gnu autoconf
> > 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.
> I dont know, but I am pretty sure autoconf works in the cygwin environment. We
> just have to make sure that we dont do anything too weird in the configure or
> > 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.
> You can compile only one directory with autoconf also. After you run
> configure, you have all the Makefiles you need. You can cd to which ever
> subdir you want and just compile that.
> One difference between the build I have now is that all the class files do not
> get moved into the classes dir. They stay in the src directory and get
> archived into the jar file from there. I think this is best since if you
> a java file then the make will be able to compare the time-stamp to the local
> object (class file) and just rebuild the new files. So if you edit one java
> file buried in the src directory, then run a top-level make, it will only
> compile that one file and re-jar everything agian. I dont think the current
> make works like that since it cant compare the time-stamps of the objects
> becasue they are moved to the classes dir, so it rebuilds everything always.
> At least that is what it was doing on my linux box when I was playing with it.
No, the current Makefile compares the source with the target correct,
it only recompiles what is necessary.
In my humble opinion i would prefer to have no class files
mess around in the source tree.
Any other votes?
mailto:ruff at swand.lake.de