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

[Shantanu Gadgil]

--- On Tue, 9/11/12, microcai <microcai at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> From: microcai <microcai at fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Add support for autotools
> To: "Simon Kelley" <simon at thekelleys.org.uk>, Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2012, 11:57 AM
> 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*

Smiles .... :)

Tsk, tsk!
Again, please re-evaluate your thinking. Just because others don't resort to calling people names, doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about.
Oh, and btw ... the prefix and be sent to the Makfile like so:
# make install PREFIX=/my/custom/path/whatever/dir

(the other flags as well)

I am pretty sure that the people commenting here understand autotools. The autotools is great, but not as great (saving the world) as it is made out to be!
Sometimes it can get in the way of what you are really trying to do!

While you are at it, why autotools, why not CMake ?!? (The options can keep going)

On a side node, an afterthought:
DNSmasq could be used as a tutorial project for CMake, autotools, SCons, whatever else!!!
It is small enough and needs to be adapted to various platforms. (Wow, I like the idea myself!:) )

Cheers,
Shantanu