[Bf-committers] GHOST and autoconf

Chris Want bf-committers@blender.org
Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:17:07 -0600


> Could somebody with more experience perhaps comment on what the benefit 
> is of keeping the NAN makefiles in the long run?  As far as I can tell, 
> the main reasons seem to be that: a) there's a lot of work required to 
> shift to GNU autotools, and b) previous NAN developers are familiar with 
> the system.  While these are good reasons initially, I don't think they 
> seem to be justified in the long run.  (Just IMHO - there may be other 
> reasons for keeping the NAN makefiles that I don't really understand yet.)

c) The autotools don't seem to do such a great job on Irix or FreeBSD,
and in particular when a non-gcc compiler is desired.

d) Autotools require the installation of additional packages beyond
a basic compiler/make system, and often they are very sensitive
to what version you use. Make seems to be 'tried and true' and doesn't
vary much between versions.

e) As a developer, I don't really want to learn a new system to
recreate the Makefiles which I already have (and which I have a
decent understanding of). I think in order to deploy the autotools
properly you need to be both a Makefile guru and an autotools guru
-- but if you are already a Makefile guru, why spend valuable coding
time trying to get autotools to work?

f) (and this is the important one) With the exception of SirDude,
nobody seems to want to actually put in the work at getting the
autotools system fully deployed. I know I sure don't want to... when I
work on blender in my free time after a hard days work at the office,
I want to work on fun computer graphics stuff rather than work on
the build system (and I already have a build system that works, so
I'm set to go already). I applaud SirDude's efforts... but he's only
one guy, and unless more autotools guru's step forward and pitch in, I
think we will remain in this limbo situation.

g) Makefiles that humans create tend to be smaller, more readable, and
easier to debug than the Makefiles autotools creates.

h) autotools does not always guarantee a nice happy build. Try
building FTGL (a dependency of blender) on a few platforms. For the
Irix and the gcc-windows builds I resorted to hand-crufting my own
Makefiles because the autotools build did such a poor job.
Or try building ardour.


Anyways, these are a few reasons why I tend to like the NaN Makefiles
better. I am fully willing to admit that some of my prejudices
are based on my lack of a good working knowledge of the auto* system,
so take them with a grain of a salt... and I hope these comments aren't
taken too personally. My gut feeling is that in the end the autotools
will win out (but only provided that more autotools gurus are willing
to work on it).

Regards,
Chris