Am 13.01.2011 15:44, schrieb Stefano Lattarini: > > [3] IMVHO Automake have had its success because it was the first > project to fill an existing gap (offering an higher-level > make-based "language" with the GNU coding standards in mind), > > doesn "future" means? One month? One year? Ten?). > This is the "roadmap" error of Quagmire I was speaking about: if it > doesn't start by being 99% automake-compatible from the beginning, > *I think* it won't take off, no matter how much better and cleaner > and easy to use it is. That's a pity, and I don't like things
By the way, I would find it more interesting to see some automake-replacement that allows GNU-make extensions and compiles them down to standard make as far as possible... On the other hand some automake-restrictions are really not needed anymore. (variables with "." and "/" would be nice - along with http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/make/Computed-Names.html it would easily allow a scheme to define generated compile-flags). cheers, Guido
