On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:15:53AM +0100, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 06:09:33PM +0100, Nico Golde wrote:
> > Hi,
> > * Kurt Van Dijck <kurt.van.dijck_AT_eia.be> [2009-03-19 17:53]:
> > > I'm in the process of cross-compiling dwm. I understand the idea of
> > > having a config.mk for this, but it is not the easiest.
> > > Since I had to fix some other packets too, I learned myself to setup a
> > > minimal autoconf. This allows one to do:
> > > ./configure && make && make install
> > >
> > > Since dwm is distributed as a source package and not binary, I suspect
> > > this can mean a serious improvement.
> > EPIC FAIL!
> > Please read the FAQ: http://suckless.org/common/faq
> I agree as a developer. a 'config.mk' approach, I understand.
> I didn't even walk all FAQ's to get the job done :-)
> As a user, I'm not that convinced. ./configure is easier to explain that
> What I learned from the automake/autoconf docs is:
> 1) autoconf allows easy test, suitable for users.
> 2) ./configure script is big :-(
> 3) automake starts the real mess, using libtool etc.
> I chose (for this & other projects) to stick to my own hand-crafted
> Makefiles, supported by autoconf.
> Some advantages of this approach:
> * The core Makefile(.in) is still readable as developer.
> * applying different --prefix, --host or DESTDIR gets easier.
I got to disagree here, since I made dwm port for crux. You only have to
take a short look at the slim Makefile and you got your answer:
make DESTDIR=$somedir PREFIX=/usr MANPREFIX=/usr/man install
At least this doesn't look complicated to me.
-- quoting guide: http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Mar 20 2009 - 08:48:04 UTC