Re: [leafnode-list] Autoconf book

[Matthias Andree <ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Brown schrieb am Freitag, den 17. November 2000:

> I think you're overreacting to a difference of opinion here.  I've had
> bad experiences with automake and while I have used it (and would
> probably use it if I were making an effort to conform to GNU coding 
> standards) I don't see why it's worth bothering.

Because it takes load off the maintainer once it is switched. I'll
happily move it.

> > Please come up with proper reasons or leave this discussion alone. I'm
> > not too inclined to discussing this without proper (technical) reasons.
> 
> Mostly the proper reason is that I don't see the easy things as being
> any easier with automake and the hard things leave you right back with
> make but working through an additional layer of abstraction trying to
> filling in the gaps.  Obviously, you don't see it that way.

The hardest thing is maintaining compatibility with those low-featured
POSIX makes, and keeping the Makefile current, in all of its aspects.

It would already help the maintainer if leafnode could depend on GNU
make, but since it currently does without, I would not like to introduce
GNU-only Makefile features that could prevent bugs; thus, I'd rather
switch to automake to overcome the possibility of forgetting things.

-- 
leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- mailing list for leafnode
To unsubscribe, send mail with "unsubscribe" in the subject to the list