On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote: >> Hi all! >> >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This patch converts the btrfs-progs build system from a single Makefile >>> to the autotools suite. >>> >>> The advantages are: >>> Easier construction of Makefiles >>> Easier to breakout the source into separate directories for easier management >>> Easier to build shared libraries automatically >>> Automatic checking for optional libraries, like libext2fs for btrfs-convert >>> Automatic infrastructure for installing and testing >>> >>> The caveats are: >>> Opinions on autotools are... mixed. >>> make C=1 no longer works, but is replaced by make check. >> >> Please make this optional.. >> I would really prefer the simple makefile that it has now.. >> If the proposed advantages are a wanted feature, I would gladly try to >> supply patches for the makefile to support them.. >> Just to keep it away from autotool hell. > > Yeah, the one-time 10 seconds of ./configure can be annoying while it > sanity checks your system, but how is a 70-line Makefile better than a > 5-line Makefile.am? While it does essentially the same thing? > Infrastructure exists for a reason. > > I'm not a huge fan of autotools either. It's heavy and annoying at > times. It can be inflexible as I rediscovered while trying to make C=1 > work. On the other hand, I'm not so much of a purist that I want to > commit anyone who touches the code to understanding a maze of > Makefile(s) either. > > This is the next generation file system for Linux. The reality is that > there is competition from other OSes. How is it a bad thing to make > things easier for potential developers to access the code? Initially > there may be a number of shy folks who just want a library they can work > with. Yes, the library will change as things progress. Making things > like extending it and installing it easier can only be a good thing. > I expect Jeff's work will make it easier for distro (or anyone) to include btrfs and btrfs-progs as experimental packages. More people can test btrfs without worring about the build process and dependency. However, I'm not sure if btrfs is ready for testing by non-developers. -- Dongjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
