| |||||||||||||
KS2011: Afternoon topicsKS2011: Afternoon topicsPosted Oct 27, 2011 19:52 UTC (Thu) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935)In reply to: KS2011: Afternoon topics by mathstuf Parent article: KS2011: Afternoon topics
Autotools supports out-of-tree builds with zero effort from the autotools user. All programs using autotools should support
(Log in to post comments)
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Oct 27, 2011 20:11 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Yes, you can configure out-of-tree, but you can't autoreconf -i -f out-of-tree. I want *zero* files in the source tree that are not meant to be committed. So yes, autotools does support out-of-tree builds, but it still leaves a dirty source tree behind.
Out-of-source *build* is probably bad wording. More precisely, .gitignore should be empty and git status (and the equivalent in the other VCS's) should also be empty starting with no generated files.
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Oct 29, 2011 19:05 UTC (Sat) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]
"I want *zero* files in the source tree that are not meant to be committed."
The cure to that is to mean to commit autoconf/automake-generated files.
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Oct 31, 2011 20:46 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
> The cure to that is to mean to commit autoconf/automake-generated files.
Which, IMO, is worse than having them in the source tree after their generation. The autoconf/automake *generated* files belong in the build directory.
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Oct 31, 2011 20:55 UTC (Mon) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]
"The autoconf/automake *generated* files belong in the build directory."
If you say so. :-)
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Nov 1, 2011 14:30 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Well, that's true if your source directory is a version-control checkout, because anything else is a recipe for conflict hell as different developers use slightly different versions of the generating tools (producing slightly different output).
It's certainly not true if your source directory is a release tarball (or other release medium). Autoconf et al should have been run for you by that point, and the result tested. That way end users don't need anything but a shell and ordinary build tools to run the build. (This is one area where cmake falls down: all the builders need a copy of it.)
KS2011: Afternoon topics Posted Nov 1, 2011 14:41 UTC (Tue) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]
"anything else is a recipe for conflict hell"
In practice, if people are pragmatic, it's fine.
|
|||||||||||||