[Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Add support for autotools

[microcai]

2012/9/10 Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk>:
> On 09/09/12 06:57, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
>> El dom 09 sep 2012 02:03:11 CLST, Shantanu Gadgil escribió:
>>> If this is done, won't the autotools chain will be a prerequisite for
>>> dnsmasq to be built.
>>>
>>> Maybe OK for Linux OSes ... not necessary for other platforms/OSes
>>> (think Solaris, AIX, and even more obscure, etc).
>>> Why the overhead?!?
>>>
>>> I really like the *really really simple* Makefile based build and not
>>> at all in favour of this!
>>
>>
>> This **really really simple** makefiles requires constant patching and
>> maintenance for distributions, in short they are a pain in the ass.
>
> It does? How come I'm not seeing these patches fed back upstream then?
> As the maintainer of the Debian (and therefore Ubuntu) packaging, I
> don't have to patch the makefile.
>
>>
>> Linux, BSDs, Solaris have automake/autoconf..etc and I could not care
>> less about obscure systems. what matters is  what most people use.
>>
>
> I wonder how this affects building on Android? Numerically, these days
> that's probably the most important dnsmasq distribution channel.

if you have android SDK, then you have

1) a bash
2) a make
3) a gcc

and that's all required by release tarball generated by make dist-bzip2

advanages over plain Makefile

1) easy cross-compile
2) easy feature checking
3) easy optional building
4) easy install
5) constant with other software releases.

SEE, if I want to use different install prefix, i have to change Makefile
SEE, if I want to use different CFLAGS, i have to change Makefile
SEE, if I want to use different LDFLAGS, i have to change Makefile

but with autotools, all you need is have --prefix=stuff and
CFLAGS=stuff LDFLAGS=stuff passed to ./configure

the only short comings that autotools brings us is

*SOME IDIOT DON'T UNDERSTAND AUTOTOOLS*


>
> It would have been useful to have talked to us before you embarked on
> this work: it's a lot of effort to go to without being sure it's useful,
> but I shall do my best to determine if it improves dnsmasq, without
> being swayed by the sunk-cost.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss