this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
44 points (97.8% liked)

Linux

48698 readers
1350 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
44
Do people use Autotools in new projects anymore? (programming.dev)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by fool@programming.dev to c/linux@lemmy.ml
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I had a teeny pet project using GNU assembly that was going to target two platforms.

Instead of keeping my handwritten worst-practices Makefile I decided to try GNU Autotools for the educated reasons of:

  • Text scrolling by looks pretty
  • Vague memories of ./configure make make install tarballs

I got hit with mysterious macro errors, recompile with -fPIE errors (didn't need this before?), autotools trying to run gcc on a .o file w/ the same options as an .s file, "no rule for all:", and other things a noob would run into. (I don't need a bugfix, since my handspun Makefile is "working on my machine" with uname -m.) So there's a bit of a learning curve here, inhibited by old documentation ~and~ ~more~ ~quietly,~ ~genAI~ ~being~ ~shittier~ ~than~ ~normal~ ~in~ ~this~ ~department~

With this I ask:

Do people still use Autotools for non-legacy stuff? If not, what do people choose for a new project's build system and why?

edit: trimmed an aside

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fool@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Terrible bait

Is that considered bait? I'll remove it, I don't mean to be hostile.

What do you mean by "more powerful" wrt CMake? Are you referring to, say, integration abilities with other projects (since know CMake is really widely-used)?

Thanks for the advice and the example!

[–] 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What do you mean by “more powerful” wrt CMake?

CMake is a turing-complete language with some APIs that Meson either doesn't have an equivalent yet because it's comparatively new (for example, until 2023, there was no built in way to get a relative path from two paths, and if you wanted that you had to shell out to an external program), or they aren't going to add because it doesn't fit their design.

Meson is (intentionally) limited in terms of extensibility, instead it tries to come with everything built in that you need, even down to specific library support like Qt, from what it seems like to me. For example, you cannot define your own functions, it ships builtin modules but does not allow other packages to provide their own (for example like KDE's Extra CMake Modules), to name a few that I'm familiar with and why I was put off using it so far.

I have yet to see how actually limiting that is, going to try to move the project I've been working on for years that relies on some of these CMake features to Meson soon and see how it fares. But considering that big projects like GNOME use it all over the place it's probably workable in practice, I'll just have to rethink the existing approach a bit.

Is that considered bait?

Wasn't it? Go's build system is very much not what I would call an example of good design (exhibit A: load-bearing comments and file names).