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

[eric]

UnixDawg on #Asterisk irc.freenode.net is working on porting Asterisk to
*BSD.  Maybe the two of you can get together on the project.  Autoconf
will help the porting.

On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 16:17, Chris Albertson wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev