On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > > > On 9 February 2012 14:04, Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote: >> >> I'll +1 both sides: >> >> 1) autotools is the worst thing on Earth > > > I believe if it was as bad as you make out, it would not be as popular as it > is. I would guess guess at least one third of open-source projects use it. > > I know William called it "autohell", but that's because he did not RTFM. I
FUD. I've spent significant time with autotools documentation. > see his early attempt at the "prereq" configure script, which was written to > be processed by autoconf. Just about every reccomendation in the manual was > ignored. The manuals suck. >> 2) sage should use it > > > I'm not convinced of that myself. I think it would be an awful lot of work > to do it properly, but if done properly it would be good for Sage IMHO. I still feel that what is being proposed is very vague. Is it to deprecate all of these variables [1] (but still fully support them for at least one year!), and make them options to a ./configure script? http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables And, merge that with the current prereq autoconf code? Is that the proposal? William -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
