Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] porting on Autotools initiative

2013-02-05 Thread Oleksiy Ch
recating Imake or getting the disadvantages of autoconf. It looks like reinventing autoconf. I understand your worry about backward compatibility yet not sure that wrapping Imake inside auto* is elegant. I believe it's possible to achieve same stability with configure. Alex

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] porting on Autotools initiative

2013-02-04 Thread Isaac Dunham
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 02:45:24 -0800 (PST) Oleksiy Ch wrote: > Taking all the pitfalls of autotools it should be stated that it > covers all imake capabilities plus adds a bunch of new features. Imake > is just static. And this is a big advantage/disadvantage. You look > only at one side - advantage.

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] porting on Autotools initiative

2013-02-04 Thread Oleksiy Ch
Taking all the pitfalls of autotools it should be stated that it covers all imake capabilities plus adds a bunch of new features. Imake is just static. And this is a big advantage/disadvantage. You look only at one side - advantage. It's static so it's great for maintainer that doesn't like thin

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] porting on Autotools initiative

2013-02-03 Thread Oleksiy Ch
step forward. SO what's special about CDE? Alex From: Pascal Stumpf To: Oleksiy Ch Cc: "cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] porting on Autotools initiative On

Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] porting on Autotools initiative

2013-02-03 Thread Pascal Stumpf
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:43:32 -0800 (PST), Oleksiy Ch wrote: > HI, > > I examined CDE it contains ancient Imakefiles. I think it must be ported on > Autotools as Motif did, but in a more wise way. I made some work in this way. > Currently I have lib dir ported on autotools completely. Actually the