Dirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I subscribed to take the chance and let everybody know (because it seems > that I'm the first one to do this) that > > autoconf
You have the wrong mailing list, you realise... > It's completely > demotivating to think about writing a new configure.in knowing that it > will most certainly bitch around about m4-bla here and ooops-there. Actually, it's called configure.ac. configure.in is deprecated. > Just look at debian they have now 3(!) different autoconf versions > because one works better or worse than the other. Actually, there are two versions. There's autoconf (the current version) and autoconf2.13 (and old version provided for backward compatibility). You should normally only need the autoconf package. > I know this is hardly a "constructive critque", but man, how much does > you shit suck. It will take some time until I can give "constructive > critiques" about autoconf again. You didn't give any actual examples to show why it "sucks", so it's not possible to take your mail too seriously. I've used autoconf in all my projects over the last 4-5 years, and I've not had huge problems, other than working my way around the odd bug. Migrating from 2.13 to 2.50 was a pain, but mainly due to my use of autoconf internals (and I also needed to port a decent amount of custom macros). -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.