Re: [Gnucap-devel] Make2 again

[al davis]

On Sunday 29 June 2014, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> please have a look at the "autotools-make2-WIP" branch. the
> instructions from "INSTALL" apply (remember to run
> ./bootstrap in case you build from git).
>
> .....
>
> I do not see any use for this. perhaps you do? again, if i
> knew what you intend to do, it would be much easier to
> pinpoint these suggestions.

That's not what I had in mind, which might explain why you don't 
see any use for it.

What I had in mind is that, at least in concept, autotools and 
Cmake are ways to generate the Make2/Make3 files, instead of the 
whole thing, maintaining modularity, maintaining the ability to 
fall back on the simpler old system of manual configuration.

There is also the issue of configuration for plugins, which is 
not addressed now, at all.

.....

The subdirs "O", "O-DEBUG" ..  for multiple builds ..  The 
method now supported by autotools and cmake is superior.  There 
is no need to continue the old way.

The old way dates back to when autotools didn't exist, GNU make 
didn't exist, BSD make didn't do include.  Later, VPATH became 
standard, so it evolved a little.  Early autoconf didn't support 
alternate build directories, didn't support C++ (and still has 
problems confusing it with C).

I like to work in small chunks.  If I am working in "apps" for 
example, I want to work there as if the others didn't exist.

When I split the files up, i tried it with autotools and gave 
up, reverting to what is essentially plain makefiles.

What I want is the apparent simplicity of plain old make with 
autotools or cmake generating the config part and boiler plate 
part. .... and leaving the local part alone, so the same local 
part can be use for autotools, cmake, and manual configuration.

I think it is just a matter of leaving that part out.

Another way to say it ....

It's "Make1" that needs to be included.
Or (like the spice model plugins) Make1  includes the rest.