Modularization mailing list and initial strawman proposal

[Jeremy C. Reed]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Roland Mainz wrote:

> This is the part which I fear a lot: The autotools pick up dependices to
> things they find on the system regardless whether this is usefull or
> not. I have VERY bad experiences with this kind of autodetection and
> it's one of the things which forced people to have seperate, clean build
> machines just to make release builds of Mozilla/Firefox/etc. on some
> platforms (or use an chroot'ed environment (which was a pain in the past
> as some stuff as the license manager stuff in the Sun Workshop 5 days
> was very allergic against chroot'ed environments when you had a
> node-specific license)).

And speaking of licenses ... the license of the X code has helped it
propogate. The build tools (imake etc.) were same licensed. Moving to
autoconf/libtool/automake will make the X.org depend more on code that is
less free license and maybe discourage people from helping on the build
tools for Xorg.

(Maybe I should rephrase that: s/less free/a different/).

What about building an alternative to automake/autoconf/libtool that has
our same license?

(I have heard many discuss that an improvement is needed.)

buildtool is one alternative that could be worked on.

Where is the document/URL about the negatives of continuing with imake?

I'd personally prefer that the Xorg team didn't dedicate time to improving
the GNU tools ...

 Jeremy C. Reed

 	  	 	 Media Relations and Publishing Services
	  	 	 http://www.reedmedia.net/