Re: [lucy-dev] C implementation [was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved]

[Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>]

On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:42:33PM -0600, Peter Karman wrote:
> Is there anything to be gained by using autoconf and friends?
>
> Or asked another way, why would we *not* want to use autoconf and friends?

Since the C API is going to be Unix only, the only objection I have to using
Autoconf is that... it's Autoconf. ;)  Have at it!

So long as you aren't suggesting *replacing* Charmonizer with Autoconf, we
have consensus and we can move forward.  (If OTOH you want to replace
Charmonizer with Autoconf, prepare for a long, bloody, morale-sucking battle.)

> I realize that it duplicates a lot of what charmonizer does.

Doesn't matter so long as we don't rely on it for that.  In particular, it
doesn't matter so long as we don't introduce Autoconf into the build process
for Lucy's other host bindings.

> OTOH, automake can generate a fully-featured Makefile like Module::Build
> does for Perl (I know M::B doesn't create a file called 'Makefile' but the
> concept is the same).

I understand what you're getting at.  If you're most comfortable using
Autotools for the Unix C bindings, cool by me -- other Unix C devs are also
going to feel comfortable with them.

Marvin Humphrey

Re: [lucy-dev] C implementation [was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved]

["David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com>]

On Nov 6, 2011, at 8:29 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> Since the C API is going to be Unix only, the only objection I have to using
> Autoconf is that... it's Autoconf. ;)  Have at it!

Why Unix only?

D

Re: [lucy-dev] C implementation [was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved]

[Peter Karman <pe...@peknet.com>]

Marvin Humphrey wrote on 11/6/11 10:29 PM:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:42:33PM -0600, Peter Karman wrote:
>> Is there anything to be gained by using autoconf and friends?
>>
>> Or asked another way, why would we *not* want to use autoconf and friends?
> 
> Since the C API is going to be Unix only, the only objection I have to using
> Autoconf is that... it's Autoconf. ;)  Have at it!
> 
> So long as you aren't suggesting *replacing* Charmonizer with Autoconf, we
> have consensus and we can move forward.  (If OTOH you want to replace
> Charmonizer with Autoconf, prepare for a long, bloody, morale-sucking battle.)
> 

no plan to replace Charmonizer on my part. long, bloody battle averted. :)

ok, based on this and Nate's good observations, I'm hearing consensus and I'll
move forward with autotools.


-- 
Peter Karman  .  http://peknet.com/  .  peter@peknet.com