[quake2] Starting out questions

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:04:55AM +0100, Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:
> Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 08:05:17PM -0400, Brendan Burns wrote:
> >
> >>On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:36 PM, Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>I'm about to start tinkering with the Q2 sources, having chosen 
> >>>icculus-quake2 over quake2forge for several reasons.  I was wondering 
> >>>if you could confirm some things for me:
> >>>
> >>>- The build system is better to me (I hate all that autoconf/automake 
> >>>stuff.)  Any plans to revamp it? (I hope no move to autoconf / 
> >>>automake!)
> >>
> >>Well, I think that's the first time anyone has called the build system 
> >>"better" but no, there are no current plans to move to autoconf.  We 
> >>should probably split the Makefile into a bunch of smaller makefiles 
> >>and start using suffix rules. (anyone? anyone?) but I'm not going to do 
> >>it anytime soon.
> >
> >
> >I'll probably sit and overhaul build infrastructure during the next few
> >days whan I have spare cycles.
> >
> >I also want to thank Brendan for not going after autotools. ;-)  They're
> >real hassle to support and to fix, from my experience.  Also, files they
> >generate (e.g., ./configure) are hardly readable.
> >
> >./danfe
> >
> >
> 
> I think I like the idea of having a 'normal' Makefile-based 
> system for general development, then an autotools system when 
> distributing sources to end-users.  That's how I (plan to) do it 
> on my projects.

Frankly, as being end-user of some products, I started to hate and
loath autoconf/automake crap.  GNU people, as always, are trying to be
smarter than anyone else.  Sigh, they rarely succeed.

./danfe

P.S.  There's alternative to autoconf: http://pmk.sf.net/.