[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [leafnode-list] Autoconf book

On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 12:59:39AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:

> I'm not discussing this further. You just claimed it did not do its job
> while I have experience with a released 1.9.17ma3 that I have some
> reports for, mostly positive ("works", "faster"). 

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.

> 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.

Mark Brown  mailto:broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
EUFS        http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/

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