Re: [Cp-tools-discuss] automakejar based build system

[Julian Scheid]

Hi there cp-tools friends,

Nic Ferrier wrote:
> I'd be really interested to hear what you guys think about this.

Taken from HACKING:
>> Here's the procedure:
>>
>>   $ autoconf amjconfigure.in > configure
>>   $ chmod u+x configure
>>   $ ./automakejar Makefile.in
>>   $ ./configure
>>   $ make all

Looks good to me.

Am I right that

>>   $ autoconf amjconfigure.in > configure
>>   $ chmod u+x configure
>>   $ ./automakejar Makefile.in

is only necessary during development/before deployment, the
standard

>>   $ ./configure
>>   $ make [all]
(    $ make install )

still applies for "end users"? In this case I have no objections,
looks like a clean and useful approach.

As a side node, wouldn't it make sense to have automakejar operate
on Makefile.in by default, as in './automakejar'?

One more suggestion, I think this:

> # You must run the automakejar script on this Make file to
> # cause the target to be legal Make syntax.
> texinfo-doclet.jar:
>    sourcedir=$(SOURCEDIR)
>    sourcefiles=$(SOURCEFILES)
>    classpath=$(JAVAHOME)/lib/tools.jar
>    classesdest=classes

would be more clear if the special variables (sourcedir etc.)
processed by your sed scripts were prefixed in some way, perhaps
with a special character not used by GNU Make/Autoconf which
gives a visual clue that these lines are template lines and
preprocessed by your tool. Like autoconf using the @...@
notion, which makes elements processed by autoconf (by ./configure,
to be exact) easily recognizable.

Another approach could be to bracket the assignments into
a block of some kind, indicating that something like a macro
is executed here. I think either approach would increase readability
and eliminate possible confusion.

BTW was it your intent to put automakejar under that?
> # (C) Tapsell-Ferrier Limited 2002  <address@hidden>

-Julian