autoconf and epel-5

Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at chello.at
Sat Feb 28 01:13:58 UTC 2009


Ed Hill wrote:
> Kevin, if you *consistently* pushed for perceived improvements (that is,
> advocated for "new-and-supposedly-improved" bits across the board) then
> I could appreciate your views as a progressive and bleeding-edge sort
> of guy.  But when you simultaneously advocate for all-new build systems
> while pining for older, less capable, and buggier (less standards
> compliant) compilers then the inconsistencies stand out.  It suggests
> that you either lack a broad appreciation of the improvements or,
> equally as damning, you are willing to ignore them since you are
> focused solely on the changes that are immediately convenient or
> appealing to you.

Switching to CMake is a one-time change and will save you from a lot of
changes to deal with backwards-incompatible autotools later. CMake tries
hard to maintain backwards compatibility, see:
http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake2.6docs.html#section_Compatibility%20Commands
http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake2.6docs.html#section_Policies
and also the older CMAKE_BACKWARDS_COMPATIBILITY mechanism, which is still
supported, see the policy CMP0001:
http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake2.6docs.html#policy:CMP0001
That's very different from the autotools' behavior of breaking things willy
nilly (yet does not preclude fixing historical warts).

You have to think in the longer term.

        Kevin Kofler




More information about the devel mailing list