Fixing the macros madness.
- From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com>
- To: gnome-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Fixing the macros madness.
- Date: 17 Jan 2001 13:22:59 -0500
Background:
It has been two years and we still have not fixed the autoconf
macros problem in a decent way. We still get a lot of
questions in irc and mailing lists from people trying to
compile code from CVS.
Compiling code from CVS is important, because sometimes that
is the only place where bug fixes are available, and small
contributors although not full fledged hackers, might be able
to contribute more if we have a decent build setup than the
build setup we have.
The gnome-common package distributes the macro files for other
modules to use for the 2.x platform, but this is a suboptimal
approach, and it is a work around for the core of the problem
which is that each package should be the provider of its own
macros, and not some magic CVS feature.
The fact that aclocal is suboptimal and that it is not getting
fixed, nor does it look like it will get fixed is maybe
hinting us that we did something wrong rather than automake.
The suggestion:
The idea is to move the install the macros in each package
that provides it into the system location (just like every
other sane package does).
The way this would work is:
1. Macro files are moved to each package that provides
it, moved from $PACKAGE/macros to $PACKAGE/auto-macros
(if there are too many macros, or $PACKAGE/. for one
macro).
2. All macros cvs removed from the macros directory.
What does this mean to developers:
People would have to install new versions of gnome-libs in
their systems during this transition period (seasoned hackers
can be more elite and type cp macros/* $prefix/share/aclocal).
We could drop the ACLOCAL_INCLUDE(macros) from out
configure.in packages (as it would be a no-op after this is
done).
The culprits:
gnome-libs, ghttp, libgtop, gnome-xml, bonobo, gnome-print, mc.
The use of the Gnome Print and Bonobo testing macros is pretty
useless anyways, the gnome-config/pkgconfig approach is a lot
better anyways.
Does anybody see anything I missed?
Best wishes,
Miguel.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]