Comment on Eric S. Raymond / autodafe · Tools for freeing your project from the clammy grip of autotools.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 7 months agoWhy compile to a Makefile? You’d end up with automake gunk all over again. Just use cmake or so, where the declarative language replaces the Makefile entirely
Corngood@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
cmake compiles to makefiles as well (it just also supports some other backends). I’m not sure why that matters though. In both cases the makefile is generated.
addie@feddit.uk 7 months ago
Not that I’m the biggest fan of CMake’s syntax, but they are fairly concise and standardised. The XZ backdoor hid in amongst thousands of lines of autotools jank that very few people would be able to audit. A short CMakeList that generates a Makefile is a much harder place to hide something nefarious.
Corngood@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
There’s actually not that much autotools jank, really. There’s configure.ac and a few Makefile.am. The CMakeLists.txt in the root is bigger than any of those files.
There’s also some stuff from autotools archive in m4/. IMO that’s a bad practice and we should instead be referencing them as a build dependencies.
I’m not convinced this backdoor would have been significantly more difficult to hide in the cmake code.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
My point was that packagers should use straight up VCS and run all build tools instead of relying on partially pre-built tarballs uploaded by the upstream maintainers.
HelloHotel@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Its a good practice to make the auto generated code a part of the
.gitignorelist. Any language installable on peoples machines can be used to build these makefiles. Ya know a language is on that list? Makefile!flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
It does? I guess I never looked inside that build directory.