Re: [reSIProcate] Build systems.
In the past this has been a huge waste of time. I will explain why I say
waste. A huge amount of time has been put in to trying to make auto tools
work and and it has never delivered something that works. If people want to
continue wasting time on this on a branch, I don't care but it needs a very
clear set of QA goals before it gets moved to mainstream.
I agree "make install" needs to work, but as far as I can tell, it works.
If there are some real problems, I'm glad to solve them. If the problem is I
wish I could make autotools works - well, there has been plenty of work on
this and I imagine it can continue.
On 3/9/06 9:10 AM, "Alan Hawrylyshen" <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Folks;
>
> I hate to raise this issue, but I think we have to. :-)
> There are a few people interested in packaging reSIProcate for
> distribution within a larger package framework, for example, the
> Debian project.
> In order to make this painless (or less painful), it would be great
> if reSIProcate had a few properties that it does not currently have:
>
> - Compile on all [project] supported architectures.
> - Build an installable library with version detection in the ABI for
> the library.
> - Create a site-local header file that encapsulates all configure
> options that affect the ABI.
> - Install cleanly from a simple 'make install' command.
>
> One of the ways we can make this work well, and I know we've tried it
> before, is to use the autotool suite. We received some fairly strong
> objections to this, and as I recall they were typically related to
> the pain involved in adding files if you wanted to work on the
> project in a major sense.
>
> I would like to solicit people's opinions on moving back to autotools
> vs extending our build system ourselves to support these simple
> requirements for packaging and better exposure (and releases) of the
> library. I dare say that right now we run very much as an
> experimental project and not as a packaged library.
>
> I welcome a transition to ABI versioning and proper installation
> support.
>
> I suspect that now our developer community is larger and more able to
> accommodate / maintain and extend autotools too. Therefore, if you
> have autotools experience, please take a moment to think this through
> and respond to the list. We'll all benefit from being able to
> evaluate the current state-of-the-community with respect to our
> skills and our goals at this time. I believe the community is much
> stronger than ever so we might be in a great position to make this
> change from 'project' to 'package'.
>
> Thanks very much I welcome all input on this topic,
>
> Alan Hawrylyshen
>
>
>
> Alan Hawrylyshen
> reSIProcate Project Administrator
> http://sipfoundry.org/reSIProcate/
> a l a n a t j a s o m i d o t c o m
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel