[Asterisk-Dev] GNU Auto Tools (Was Problem with asterisk/codecs/gsm/Makefile asterisk/codecs/mp3)

[Chris Albertson]

OK, I'll be more clear...

I'll do this, in time, not right away.  But a build system is
something that developers use a lot.  It is not worth the
effort if Asterisks developers don't want it or don't like
it.  Using Autotools has implications. Some are.

1) You must have the GNU auto tools instaled on your system if
you want the make changes to the build system

2) Users who just want to compile Asterisk would not need
anything they don't currently need.

3) to support #2 a _bunch_ of files are added to the project's
root directory.  Enough stuff is added that you likely no longer
want any "dot C" files in the root directory.  Typicaly they
all go in something lke "src/" 

The resistance I've seen from some developers to using auto tools
is from those who don't understand what it is or how it works and
feel that there would be a steep leaning curve.  This view comes
about naturally when you look at and try to read a typical
"configure" script or try and read a configure script generated
Makefile.  Thay are thousands of lines long and unreadable giberish.
BUT these files are _products_ never intended to be read or
modified by anyone.  It's like looking at a binary executable,
not something you'd normally do.  Developers need only
maintain two smaller files configure.ac and makefile.am all
the other files are automatically generated

Once you've done the conversion over to autotools maintenace of the
build system becomes mostly triveal.  In fact having a maintanable
build system is a primary motivation for NOT using hand written
Makefiles and going with automake/autoconf/libtool suite
The effort required to do the conversion is non-trivel however.

I'd propose NOT doing asterisk first.  Start with (say)
libpri 





--- Tilghman Lesher <tilghman at mail.jeffandtilghman.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 16 October 2003 20:58, Chris Albertson wrote:
> > No, read it again.  I didn't say "Please do this."  I asked
> > if there was a reason not to do it.  Reason I asked is because
> > some developers think auto tools to complex and would rather
> > write portable makefiles by hand.
> >
> > I was thinking of doing the conversion to auto tools myself
> > but would only atempt it if the result would be accepted into
> > CVS.
> 
> Yes, but the point is, are you volunteering to maintain it?  That's
> an ongoing commitment.  If you aren't willing, then there's your
> reason why not to do it.
> 
> And it's really silly to condition writing something on it being
> committed to CVS.  The condition is usually in the reverse -- if
> it's _good_ (and fulfills the legal requirements), then it gets
> committed.  I myself have gone through several iterations of a
> patch before it was considered good enough to be committed
> to CVS.
> 
> -Tilghman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev


=====
Chris Albertson
  Home:   310-376-1029  chrisalbertson90278 at yahoo.com
  Cell:   310-990-7550
  Office: 310-336-5189  Christopher.J.Albertson at aero.org
  KG6OMK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com