From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26212 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2010 21:46:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 26202 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2010 21:46:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.phy.duke.edu (HELO mail.phy.duke.edu) (152.3.182.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:46:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.phy.duke.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0FF780AD; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:45:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.phy.duke.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.phy.duke.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with LMTP id IWqiPJLFVrsA; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:45:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-152-3-153-24.wireless.duke.edu (user-152-3-153-24.wireless.duke.edu [152.3.153.24]) by mail.phy.duke.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22A0780A5; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:45:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:46:00 -0000 From: "Robert G. Brown" To: Gerard Jungman cc: gsl-discuss mailing list Subject: Re: Feedback from GSL folks on libflame 4.0 In-Reply-To: <1266613086.27033.124.camel@manticore.lanl.gov> Message-ID: References: <4a00655d1002171047t4e87fb85w88b609245e3f9a8e@mail.gmail.com> <4B7D90B5.4020707@cs.utexas.edu> <87y6ipozqi.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk> <1266613086.27033.124.camel@manticore.lanl.gov> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-q1/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Gerard Jungman wrote: > On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:41 -0500, Robert G. Brown wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Brian Gough wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for using autoconf. I think it is a good thing. >> >> Yeah, I don't really think of them as optional these days. They are far >> from perfect and often a PITA, but what they do is necessary. > > You guys are missing the point. The question is not > "autotools or nothing" but "autotools or cmake". Sure, or (God help us) aimk or other ancient solutions to the problem. But is cmake any better? When I tried it last -- some years ago, I admit -- it wasn't, at least not for me. If you build a package intended to go into many different distros (ones with toplevel referees), they all but require autotools. Will they accept cmake instead? Ultimately, it comes down to standard practice. Nearly every packaged application in nearly every linuxoid or BSDish OS uses GBT. Everybody knows to cd into the toplevel directory, run ./configure --whatever, make, and you're done. Tools like glade build a GBT project directory for you whether you like it or not. I tried fighting this for years more because the documentation still pretty much sucks so you have to work quite hard to figure out how to actually use the tools and move past simple templates, but once you get a COMPLEX template set up, sheer inertia keeps you there. So, will Debian accept a cmake packaging? Fedora? I really don't know, but when I looked at the Fedora packaging requirements and worked on getting a package into Debian, the nominal rules called for GBT and there was a lot of pressure to stick with them because everybody knows how to build with them. rgb > > -- > G. Jungman > > Robert G. Brown http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/ Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305 Durham, N.C. 27708-0305 Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525 email:rgb@phy.duke.edu