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

[Jan Seiffert]

Shantanu Gadgil schrieb:
> I would respectfully ask you to re-evaluate the "what most people
> use" statement. The simplicity of DNSMasq is what makes it so
> popular.
> 

I would say yes to the simplicity.
But i would not search it in the build.

I have been there with a project of mine.
Yes, a Makefile and an header where you comment in or out certain
things looks easy, esp. since i also didn't like autotools.

But that is not easy.

It breaks the mantra of
./configure
make
make install

People have to know what they are commenting in or out there.

Managing such configuration sets from an automated build environment
are a pain.

And there are a lot of other subtle little things which make this not
so easy as it might sound.

> Non-Linux OSes do not have autotools by default,

And you normally do not need them. The .tar.gz should come with an
already created configure script and a Makefile.

All your platform needs is a shell, make, and a compiler.

Only if you want to develop on dnsmasq, then you may need autotools
installed.

> a little bit of work
> is required to put them there. (It is not as simple as "zypper
> install {autotools-packages}" or "yum install {autotools-packages}")
> 
> So instead of just "dnsmasq doesn't work on my XYZ OS/platform", the
> question would be ... "how to install auto tools on my XYZ
> OS/platform" because I want to try out DNSmasq...
> 

No.

> If a dependency on autotools would be forced upon new users of
> DNSMasq,

If and only if you receive the code without the created
configure and Makefile, then you would need autotools installed to
create them. Such a case could be for example if you checkout of a
VCS, because normally one does not add the configure and Makefile to
a VCS because they are machine created files.

> newer platforms/OSes would not get experimented upon.
> 

To face the facts:
dnsmasq needs a POSIX os. Otherwise a lot of the network foo would not
work.

Autotools are not the problem in such a case.
Also in cross environments you do not need autotools on the target, only
on the host.

> In turn, users of DNSMasq lose out as now it only focuses on "most
> people".
> 

You have to see it from Cristians perspective. He is a Packager for OpenSuSE.
Packagers are maybe a minority, but are important people.

A hand full of people create Packages for often several
different software for a _lot_ of users. Not only in Linux.

I would not argue that a patch thrown over the fence is very cavalier.
But things that make their jobs easier, means they have more time to look
for bugs and other things instead of tedious fighting with the build system.

It even makes the life for mere mortal users which compile them self a little
bit easier.

Only developer would feel "the pain".
But if as a developer you do not have autotools on your machine...
Remember that autotools is a set of scripts, that need m4 and perl,
a reasonably prerequisite on a POSIX OS.

> Anyway, DNSmasq is Simon's baby, I was just presenting my opinion.
> :)
> 
> Regards, Shantanu
> 

Greetings
	Jan

-- 
A UDP packet walks into a