Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 10:58:13AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: >> On 12-Aug-06, 09:09 (CDT), Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > At 1155391794 past the epoch, Bernd Schubert wrote: >> > > Btw, why always the autotools while there's this nice >> > > cmake? >> > >> > I've never used cmake myself, so I can't speak for how nice >> > it is, but autotools (for all its problems) is very >> > widespread. >> >> So is syphilis. That doesn't make it desirable. > > Syphilis is a disease. Software usually isn't. > > In the case of autotools, the fact is that usually it's configure.ac or > Makefile.am being horribly broken, rather than the autotools. > > If used properly, autotools usually do their job; and pretty well, too. >
Just have a look here http://lwn.net/Articles/188693 Cheers, Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
