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
___
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
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:
>
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 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 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
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
> -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 AutoTools
>
...
> That's beca
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.
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 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, 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
> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:05 PM
> > To: autoc
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
