On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 4:32 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> There *are* good tutorials available for the autotools.
> John Calcote's book is awesome, I highly recommend it.
> The "Goat book" ("GNU Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool" by Gary V. Vaughn and
> Ben Elliston)
> was great for its time; if
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:40:20 -0600
"John Calcote" wrote:
> I guess I misunderstood. So help me understand - why send a message
> to the list stating how bad the manual is if you don't hope someone
> on the list will read your message and decide to update the manual
> accordingly? Isn't it reasona
> > I honestly don't get why you have a problem with this attitude in open
> > source software.
>
> This is not an open source software problem. It's your attitude problem,
that
> is being reflected in single open source software project.
> There is nothing in the source code that forces people
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
"David A. Wheeler" wrote:
> I believe that the autoconf, automake, and libtool manuals are
> reasonable references, but are difficult for people who "just want to
> use it" for common simple cases and don't care about all the details.
I was thinking somet
>
> The division "open source" vs "commercial" is wrong. you certainly know
that
> open source is a development model, it can be and it is used both in
> commercial and non-commercial projects.
I'm sorry - you're absolutely right Ineiev - please forgive my oversight. I
made a fatal mistake using
There *are* good tutorials available for the autotools.
John Calcote's book is awesome, I highly recommend it.
The "Goat book" ("GNU Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool" by Gary V. Vaughn and
Ben Elliston)
was great for its time; if updated that'd be great too.
For quick introductions, there are lots
On 09/12/2014 05:43 PM, John Calcote wrote:
I honestly don't get why you have a problem with this attitude in open
source software.
This is not an open source software problem. It's your attitude
problem, that is being reflected in single open source software project.
There is nothing in t
Hello, John!
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:43:40AM -0600, John Calcote wrote:
>
> I honestly don't get why you have a problem with this attitude in open
> source software.
...
> There are pros and cons to commercial software.
The division "open source" vs "commercial" is wrong. you certainly
know t
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> No, it's not a "natural" attitude. I have worked on open-source
> projects where this attitude is not present and on proprietary ones
> which had it in spades. It depends on the people involved. And it also
> drives people away from open-sour
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:43:40 -0600
"John Calcote" wrote:
> I honestly don't get why you have a problem with this attitude in open
> source software. It's not a bad attitude - it's a natural attitude.
> You're trying to treat the Autotools as if a paid team of developers
> is working on it. If tha
> On 09/04/2014 11:40 PM, John Calcote wrote:
> > If you're looking for a tutorial that walks you through the small set
> > of tasks that you personally need to perform, you're unlikely to find
> > one unless you write it.
>
> As I see it, this is a clear indicator that the manual is sub-par and
d
On 09/04/2014 11:40 PM, John Calcote wrote:
If you're looking for a tutorial that walks you through the small set of
tasks that you personally need to perform, you're unlikely to find one
unless you write it.
As I see it, this is a clear indicator that the manual is sub-par and
doesn't fulfill
On 09/05/2014 01:52 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
It's not like there is an army of well-paid developers to maintain this
stuff.
Perhaps there would be more contributions and people picking up the
slack if people like you didn't replied with passive-aggressive versions
of "patch it yourself" whenev
On 09/04/2014 09:33 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
Can you be more constructive? I think Autoconf and Automake have rather
good manuals[1][2].
Neither autoconf nor automake have good manuals. They do have extensive
manuals, but they are very hard to read and to reference.
Zé
_
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
> Quoted from the linked page:
>> After some investigation, I discovered that the documentation for GNU
>> AutoTools was crappy. This is surprising considering how long it has
>> been in use. ☹
>
> Can you be more constructive? I think Autoconf a
On 2014-09-04 20:02 -0400, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:40:40 -0600
> "John Calcote" wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: autoconf-bounces+john.calcote=gmail@gnu.org
> > > [mailto:autoconf-bounces+john.calcote=gmail@gnu.org] On Behalf
> > > Of Shawn H Corey
>
> On Sep 5, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2014, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
>> * the good old "Goats Book" which is also available online, and seems
>> to have received an update lately:
>>
>>https://www.sourceware.org/autobook/autobook/autobook_
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:52:58 -0700
Paul Eggert wrote:
> I expect them to make constructive and specific suggestions, which
> have been in short supply in this thread but which have occurred in
> the past and, I hope, the future.
>
I have made suggestions; they've been ignored.
> It's not like
For further reference: don't forget Alexandre Duret-Lutz's excellent
Autotools Tutorial (https://www.lrde.epita.fr/~adl/autotools.html).
IMHO people should start with this, then the Autotools Mythbuster.
Regards
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
> * the good old "Goats Book" which is also available online, and seems
> to have received an update lately:
>
> https://www.sourceware.org/autobook/autobook/autobook_toc.html
>
> I still refer to my paper copy every once in a while, but by n
On 2014-09-04 19:47, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> I have just added an article to my blog on my programming language
> about the GNU AutoTools. Please feel free to comment.
>
> http://kori-programming-language.blogspot.ca/2014/09/a-closer-look-at-gnu-autotools.html
> [1]
Well in my humble opinion
Shawn H Corey wrote:
How on Earth do you expect somebody who does know very much about
autoconf be able to correct the problems?
I expect them to make constructive and specific suggestions, which have
been in short supply in this thread but which have occurred in the past
and, I hope, the fut
rsday, September 04, 2014 4:05 PM
> > To: autoconf
> > Subject: Re: A Closer Look at GNU AutoTools
> >
> ...
> > That's because you have forgotten what's it like to be faced with
> thousands
> > of pages of technical manuals about something you know n
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 00:36:11 +0200
Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
> at least with autotools there are alternative documentation sources:
>
> * the good old "Goats Book" which is also available online, and seems
> to have received an update lately:
>
> https://www.sourceware.org/autobook/autobo
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:12:32 -0700
Paul Eggert wrote:
> The manuals can be improved, and a good way to improve them is to
> propose specific patches, in 'git diff' format. Merely complaining
> about them will probably not be an effective use of your time.
Patronizing novices might make you fe
On 09/04/2014 11:00 PM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> When was the last time you read completely through those manuals?
> There's too much information all at once. And I didn't say the manuals
> were bad. It's that the documentation is too dense and not organized
> for learning. In other words, crappy.
> -Original Message-
> From: autoconf-bounces+john.calcote=gmail@gnu.org
> [mailto:autoconf-bounces+john.calcote=gmail@gnu.org] On Behalf Of
> Shawn H Corey
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:05 PM
> To: autoconf
> Subject: Re: A Closer Look at GNU Auto
Shawn H Corey wrote:
You mean those ASCII diagrams that should be inside tags?
And you don't think that's crappy?
The manuals can be improved, and a good way to improve them is to
propose specific patches, in 'git diff' format. Merely complaining
about them will probably not be an effective
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:55:27 -0400
Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2014-09-04 17:00 -0400, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:33:13 -0400
> > Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > Can you be more constructive? I think Autoconf and Automake have
> > > rather good manuals[1][2]. Why are they crappy? How
On 2014-09-04 17:00 -0400, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:33:13 -0400
> Nick Bowler wrote:
> > Can you be more constructive? I think Autoconf and Automake have
> > rather good manuals[1][2]. Why are they crappy? How can we make
> > them better?
> >
> > [1] https://gnu.org/s/autoc
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:33:13 -0400
Nick Bowler wrote:
> Can you be more constructive? I think Autoconf and Automake have
> rather good manuals[1][2]. Why are they crappy? How can we make
> them better?
>
> [1] https://gnu.org/s/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html
> [2] https://gnu.org/s/automake/man
On 2014-09-04 13:47 -0400, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> I have just added an article to my blog on my programming language
> about the GNU AutoTools. Please feel free to comment.
>
> http://kori-programming-language.blogspot.ca/2014/09/a-closer-look-at-gnu-autotools.html
Quoted from the linked page:
>
Shawn H Corey wrote:
I have just added an article to my blog on my programming language
about the GNU AutoTools. Please feel free to comment.
http://kori-programming-language.blogspot.ca/2014/09/a-closer-look-at-gnu-autotools.html
i wanted to comment on this that you should take a look at
h
I have just added an article to my blog on my programming language
about the GNU AutoTools. Please feel free to comment.
http://kori-programming-language.blogspot.ca/2014/09/a-closer-look-at-gnu-autotools.html
--
Don't stop where the ink does.
Shawn
___
34 matches
Mail list logo
