I will do the will of the developers. Any more opinions on this and arguments for and against? I just learned automake while doing this, so I still need to figure out some other things, like how to explicitly recursively copy files from location A to location B and other simple things, but I feel pretty confident in what I know thus far.
The recursive makefiles seem okay to me, and it doesn't seem that difficult to trace their whereabouts. I think I will open a wiki page on our build system, as it is another component that seems like it should be light and demystified if we want to move another direction eventually. Does this sound like a good idea?
Jon
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 09:13, Ted Gould wrote:
On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 03:59, Jonathan Phillips wrote:
I will delve further into cleaning up the makefiles now that I understand automake and makefiles much better. There is sooo much legacy architecture and cheap hacks where the same paths are called in different places in the makefiles. Also, would you all agree that I should migrate the current recursive makefiles to just one top-level makefile? You all might also email me/the list a wishlist of how to clean up the source tree and the makefile nasties as they currently exist.
Uhm, yeah. I like the recursive Makefiles. I like being able to work in one directory (e.g. extension) and being able to continually rebuild that directory to get all the warnings and errors out. Also, by building the individual libraries I think it will be easier to create test programs that work with them (e.g. the ones in libnr). So, while I know there is a lot of cruft in the automake files (which should be removed), I think that recursive Makefiles is a good thing.
--Ted