fine. but, c'mon. that's no reason to reinvent the wheel. autoconf/automake do this in a way that's already familiar to everyone. if you use the standard stuff you save everybody grief.
One problem with that analogy is that not everyone is familiar with what you think of as standard stuff. A simple "make install" is more standard to many of us. Another problem is library skew, aka DLL-hell. Postfix maintainers should not have to be responsible for updates whenever the autoconf version/API changes. It's bad enough when POSIX changes long-terms standard shell features and command flags, add autoconf and the problem increases 100 fold. Dependencies without a significant positive return are rarely worth the trouble, especially when the scripts you would be replacing are better than autoconf in the first place. Also, many of us don't want to be restricted in our redistribution of modified code. We particularly do not want to risk being sued by the FSF for not publishing our own code because of some GPL dependency. YMMV, Roger Marquis
