Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1016DE0AF8 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 12:03:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aPojs_ob-j6c for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 12:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.xen14.node3324.gplhost.com (gitolite.debian.net [87.98.215.224]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AE8F6DE0A87 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 12:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by mx.xen14.node3324.gplhost.com with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yumlx-00015g-D0; Tue, 19 May 2015 19:01:49 +0000 Received: (nullmailer pid 4810 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 19 May 2015 19:01:15 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Ronny Chevalier , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: configure tool In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20~rc1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 21:01:15 +0200 Message-ID: <87y4kkfl38.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:03:20 -0000 Ronny Chevalier writes: > Hi, > > I'm curious about the reason behind choosing to do your own configure > tool instead of using tools like autotools or cmake? I guess the most relevant discussion is not that recent: http://mid.gmane.org/1258897630-22282-1-git-send-email-jeff@ocjtech.us and to a lesser extent the discussion starting atL http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.notmuch.general/635 > For example, I noticed that the part that check if the compiler > options are supported, is not working. Try adding a flag supported by > gcc but not by clang and use clang to compile or vice-versa. Sure, of course there can be bugs, just as in any configuration system. Can you give a more specific recipe to reproduce it? Thanks, d