Re: gnu autoconf

[Marcel Ruff <ruff at swand.lake.de>]

> > The C++ stuff is best handled with configure.
> > I like configure, because it just always
> > worked perfectly when i used in on many
> > different kinds of UNIXes.
> >
> I dont know, but I am pretty sure autoconf works in the cygwin environment.  We
> just have to make sure that we dont do anything too weird in the configure or
> Makefiles.

OK.

> 
> > When i develop xmlBlaster, i'm sitting at my Linux
> > box, using the make stuff, since i can compile
> > in the directory of interest only.
> 
> You can compile only one directory with autoconf also.  After you run
> configure, you have all the Makefiles you need.  You can cd to which ever
> subdir you want and just compile that.

OK.

> 
> One difference between the build I have now is that all the class files do not
> get moved into the classes dir.  They stay in the src directory and get
> archived into the jar file from there.  I think this is best since if you
> modify
> a java file then the make will be able to compare the time-stamp to the local
> object (class file) and just rebuild the new files.  So if you edit one java
> file buried in the src directory, then run a top-level make, it will only
> compile that one file and re-jar everything agian.  I dont think the current
> make works like that since it cant compare the time-stamps of the objects
> becasue they are moved to the classes dir, so it rebuilds everything always.
>  At least that is what it was doing on my linux box when I was playing with it.

No, the current Makefile compares the source with the target correct,
it only recompiles what is necessary.

In my humble opinion i would prefer to have no class files
mess around in the source tree.

Any other votes?

Marcel

-- 
Marcel Ruff
mailto:ruff at swand.lake.de
http://www.lake.de/home/lake/swand/
http://www.xmlBlaster.org