Re: autotools and ada

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 19:53 +0100, Pascal Obry wrote:

> You'll probably agree that it is far better to do:
> 
> 	$ make build test

I do agree and this is where GNU make is the most useful tool.

I always have *small* makefiles with the first target being

all: test doc

And they have a dist: target that asks the version control
system to make an archive  e.g.

$ darcs dist
 or
$ prcs --execute | cpio -oc > ../dist-$(date ...).cpio

BUT, all this can easily be done without running autotools, as
you have mentioned at the end of your post.
GNU make is comparatively powerful as a make tool! 
vpath, $(function ...) etc. come to mind. They are underused.

>  Use the make tools from your Ada vendor
> (gnatmake for example).

It's slightly confusing to call gnatmake a make tool when discussing
the traditional make program, I think. :)

There is a nice separation here. I can, to some extent, use the same
Makefile for producing docs and running some tests, and leave the
Ada parts largely to the language and to the build tools provided by
the Ada toolmakers. That's why I don't see a pressing need for
autotools for Ada programs. (And for Eiffel programs, etc.)

After all they were originally invented to cope with messy,
non-standardised C installations on Unix, on a text macro
replacement Unix toolbox basis. I hope that Ada
installations won't follow the same path. KISS.
See e.g. the origins of GCC PR 23400, which is in the
way of running $ make check when you have built a 4 series GCC.
The failure has some obscure reason originating in, huh!,
fixincludes.