Linux @lemmy.ml fool @programming.dev 5d ago

Do people use Autotools in new projects anymore?

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're viewing a single thread.

13 comments

Meson and CMake are the two major players I've seen along autotools. Are they better? In some respects, yes (especially Meson, imo), in others... not really. For a pet project that only targets two platforms, I'd just stick to handwritten worst-practices Makefile. You will likely have less trouble with that than any of the others, simply because you know it already.
- Yeah I was considering using one of these two, out of curiosity.
  
  I've heard complaints about CMake... on pre-2015 forums, so I don't know where it's at now.
  
  I've done very little from the developer side of Meson but I do recall having tried a sound theme that, inexplicably, had a Meson-based installer. (It was just .ogg files iirc.) That's probably a good sign if someone picked it over an install.sh
  
  Though you're right, there's probably little advantage in me not using a Makefile here, except again, curiosity

13 comments