I think we users should do some effort here!
If we have this tool for free the least we can do is to easy the work of
the developers... i don't see any trouble in dealing with another
package on our systems!! if we really need some software won't we make
all the efforts to install it?
Is not cmake or any other tools proposed to build/install lam
available?? if not i don't see the point of writing some software that
can not be used ;-) if they are available why can't we learn how to use
then and leave the lam developers focus for other challenges?? or for
better enjoying their weekends :-)
regards,
nelson
Jeff Squyres wrote:
> This is certainly a fair point.
>
> However, my concern here is that the configure/build system is an entire
> sub-system in itself -- it's rather large and complex, which means that
> it can have plenty of bugs in itself. For example, the current
> configure/build system is approximately 20,000+ lines of code. The
> thought of creating and maintaining two sub-systems of this size that
> perform roughly the same functionality is daunting, to say the least.
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Bussoletti, John E wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> It seems you have two problems that your trying to address with a single
>> solution.
>>
>> On the one hand, for the development process, you want fast builds. On
>> the other hand you want universal ability to build LAM on a wide variety
>> of systems.
>>
>> Why insist on a single answer to two problems? It seems to me that you
>> could use cmake etc internally and, prior to a release, revert back to
>> the more-widely available toolset automake, autoconf etc.
>>
>> John Bussoletti
>>
|
