> From: Tom Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 09:30:13 -0700 (PDT) > > I would expect these forks to be very stable, > tending mostly to be simplified over time.
I don't expect that. On the contrary, many of the macros recently added to Autoconf (and even-newer macros stacked up to be added to Autoconf) are for GNU make, Bash, and other core utilities. It would be nice to radically improve the autotools -- nobody's really happy with the current status, after all, we just put up with it because it's too much work to come up with anything much better -- but it's not clear that a fork would be a good way to achieve the goal. Also, the fork is not really the main issue. The main issue is what to fork _to_. You like GNU Make, others like Perl, still others might prefer Cook, Guile, etc. > potentially radical, sweeping work that could benefit all the > non-bootstrapping packages. Sounds like fun, but it also sounds like a lot of work. Got anything particular in mind? Preferably, something that has been implemented and has a fair amount of use by outsiders already? Autotools users are a conservative lot, I'm afraid.
