On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 07:09 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 08:57:11AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I agree, however, that there is nothing _fundamentally_ evil about
There is a lot fundamentally evil about autotools, it uses perl to start
with.
Except that you personally seem to hate Perl and apparently feel like
having to reiterate your opinion, it's an implementation detail, not of
any importance to it's function.
BTW: perl is the least problematic part of the autotools. The most
problematic ones are shells and m4, plus people outsmarting themselves
by abusing the autotools.
> autotools. Autotools don't kill cross-compilation; people
do. Autotools
> just seem to make it easy.
Autotools also makes it extremely hard to debug a cross compilation problem.
How
that?
Neither does it deal with repeatability, consider what happens if you
cross
build a package during beta and it works then native build it during final
and it doesn't.
And how is this problem related to the autotools?
Use 2 different build directories and appropriate host/build/target
tuples and you're done.
The vaguaries of the compiler and cross compiler suite can
cause this to bite you very occasionally.
Sure, ... this would you hit with other
buildsystem in the same way.
It would be good to be able to cross build Fedora, if only for slow
old
architectures and embedded where its pretty essential.
Sure.
Ralf