From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ab5f27c42c253ac5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!eusc.inter.net!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT and GNU build system Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:04:44 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1091635484 6585 134.91.1.34 (4 Aug 2004 16:04:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:04:44 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/800)) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2545 Date: 2004-08-04T16:04:44+00:00 List-Id: Mark H Johnson wrote: : Just because autoconf / automake are popular with some free software : products does not make it a "defacto standard". Yea. In addition, the moment you have to deviate only slightly from what the automake users have thought of in advance, it becomes an automess. (BTDT many times, auto*/configure has a very low threshold for the arousal of anger in non-standard(!) environments. All the more when a bunch of dependences is unnecessary and only caused be a miminal-effort lazy automake setup.) GNAT, or IOW the Ada part of GCC, has a way of automatically knowing about Ada libraries, through the contents of ada_*_path files in the installation directories. In my view the automake phenomenon (a euphemism) works very similar to a selffulfilling prophecy. ("Just install GNU and a number of scripting languages on your system, the latest versions, please, and then run autoxyz, you can then compile the software. See how nice it works? Oh, there is no GNU on your system? Well... uhm, you can also have a prebuilt hassle-free binary...") If a multitude of C libraries cannot be built without autotools, I don't see many reasons why this should be made true of Ada libraries as well. (Another example of a configure-free C library is the RXP validating XML parser.) On a related issue, many (young?) programmers seem to think that #ifdef _THIS_HEADER_ is a good thing. OTOH, the UNIX gurus who have also made Plan 9 and related programs have avoided this style of programming. I think that working on removing #ifdefs from C files will do good to almost every C program. The same is true if you put some effort into a program that can be easily configured without autotools. The time needed will come back later, many times. (At least this has been my experience.) GNU Make is a useful tool, even more so if the Makefile (singular) is small. -- Georg