dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:10:33PM +0200, Johan Jansson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:36:37PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:55:18AM +0200, Johan Jansson wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > Ok, too bad. I think autotools performs sufficiently well, so there's
> > > no crisis. If we decide to stick with autotools for the short term, I
> > > think there are some improvements we can do to the build system. I
> > > would like to look into a flat Makefile to simplify dependency
> > > construction for example. But it's not top priority, I guess we'll get
> > > there eventually.
> > 
> > What do you mean by flat Makefile?
> > 
> > /Anders
> 
> A non-recursive Makefile. See for example:
> 
> http://www.pcug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html
> 
> That article does not discuss autotools, here is some discussion
> related to that:
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/automake@xxxxxxx/msg11521.html
> 
>   Johan

Interesting. Would we still keep a structure where different "sub
libraries" are kept in different directories (even if the sub
libraries are not explicitly built)?

One issue is with interdependencies between "sub libraries". With a
flat Makefile, it seems we would not be able to enforce a strict
interdependency relation between the "sub libraries". (But we don't do
that now anyway, since we throw in the -I../etc to all libraries.)

Anything we can do to simplify the build is great.

In particular, I'd like to remove the builds in pre, post and config.

/Anders