Boost logo

Boost :

From: Braden N. McDaniel (braden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-24 14:12:31

On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Beman Dawes wrote:

> At 12:27 PM 2/24/00 -0500, Braden N. McDaniel wrote:
> >> That's too bad. I guess the Unix script could first copy the
> source
> >> files into the automake directory. But why bother with all that
> >> machinery? Why not just invoke the compiler directly?
> >
> >You mean, why not avoid automake and write the makefiles by hand?
> Because
> >automake saves a ton of work in this regard. Writing an automake
> script is
> >much, much easier than writing an equivalent makefile.
> Why use a makefile at all?

Well, if autoconf/automake/libtool are to be used, they rely on it. The
end output of the process autoconf initiates is a set of Makefiles.

> A simple invocation of the compiler is all that is needed.

The large number of variations between the various Unices ensures that
this is anything but simple. It's the configure script's job to figure out
things like how the compiler should be invoked on the host platform.

> Doesn't make just make setup more complicated for blanket compilations
> like an install?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Braden N. McDaniel

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at