Autoconf and branches was: Sidebar re autoconf

[Anand Kumria]

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Andrew Tridgell wrote:

> Anand wrote:
> > Okay, for onw I've simply made autoconf a different machine type. 
> 
> that's an interesting approach! It certainly gives us a "minimal
> change".

Indeed. It also means I can test to see how many ill effects it has when I
do define a specific machine type.

> > Before I forget, I'm putting patches on
> > <URL:ftp://ftp.progsoc.uts.edu.au/users/wildfire/samba/> and it is also
> > available via http at the same location.
> 
> what I'd really like is to give you write access to CVS and I'll
> create a BRANCH_AUTOCONF based on the current main branch. When the
> autoconf stuff is working well I'll then merge it into the main branch
> (that will be one heck of a merge!)

Hmm, at the moment I am patching against BRANCH_NTDOM; I'll spend some
time this weekend porting it back to the mainline. Unless of course your
release timetable/schedule is different.

I know that you intend that Samba 2.x (at some point) be protocol
independant, and obviously NTDOM will be merged back into the mainline -
when do you see (want to see) that happening?

> PS: Do you think we should use automake?

Perhaps. Part of doing that will be autoconf'iscating SAMBA ( and
libtool'ing any ibraries) anyway. automake will likely impose a recursive
makefile situation on you, or at least make them seem more attractive,
which is something you wanted to avoid. After reading
<URL:http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html> I
tend to agree that recursive makefiles aren't good.

Regards,
Anand.

-- 
 `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
  its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
  forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
  holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"