Re: testing

On Monday 09 February 2015, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> yes. it would still be good to have the useful fraction of
> this lot on our side. i don't believe in miracles, like an
> implementation without autotools. it's a bit sad that you
> want to get rid of it before we have a replacement -- no
> matter if it exists.

I don't want to get rid of it.  I want to use it in a more 
structured, more modular way, that isn't in the way.  
Configuration should be a module that should not be mixed with 
other things.

The 3-part makefile is something I came up with before autotools 
existed, and I still believe it is the best way to go.  It has 
gotten messed up on its own over the years and needs to go back 
to its roots.

The 3 parts:
Make1 is this project.
Make2 is configuration.
Make3 is boiler plate, always the same.

Originally I would hand edit Make2, and often I still prefer to 
do that.

The way I want to use autotools is to generate Make2, and use 
its version of Make3.

As it stands, it actually sort of does that, but then scrambles 
it all up into a big mess, and scatters it all over the project 
root directory.

The removal was because I couldn't figure out how to deal with 
plugins properly, and it was easy with plain old make.

So how about a compromise ..  Use autotools to generate Make2 
and Make3.  Clean up the fuzz.  Encapsulate it, put it all in 
one subdirectory to eliminate the clutter.

Actually, that suggestion is not a compromise.  It is what 
autotools needs to become truly good.