visual studio and git
levipearson at gmail.com
Fri Nov 8 01:24:27 MST 2013
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Dan Egli <ddavidegli at gmail.com> wrote:
> On November 6, 2013, Charles Curley wrote:
>> Autotools is reputed to be an unholy mess, and very difficult to
>> maintain. I have never been able to understand how the whole tool chain
>> works. The lack of documentation didn't help either.
> Well, I'll agree on the documentation point. Documentation for the programs
> (beyond the miniscule man pages I can sometimes find) would be most helpful.
Surely you guys are joking about lack of autotools documentation. You
realize that all the classic GNU tools are documented extensively in
the info system, right? And the texinfo format they're written in has
tools for HTML export, so they're all up on the web at gnu.org (among
other places) as well.
>> There are alternatives, such as scons.
> Forgive me be a newb on this one, but what the heck is scons, and where do
> I find out more about it? :)
Sorry, but I'm going to have to send you here for a question like
> If it will make my configure and Makefile
> files for me so I don't have to handle the whole process manually then I'm
> curious about it. I love the ./configure && make && make install sequence,
> since it automates so much, but I will agree that using autotools to make
> the control files (configure.in, Makefile.in, etc...) is a pain in the A__
> at times.
Some other things you might want to look at, if you really want
something besides make/autotools:
CMake (possibly paired with ninja)
And there are probably many others I'm not remembering right now. They
don't all have quite the same scope, but you may find some combination
of things among them that you might like.
More information about the PLUG