I asked Pier off-list about why autoconf/automake was not good. It was
requested that the response go back to the list so that all can benefit.
As for me, I would love to hear more opinions on the subject, on or off-list,
since I am trying to learn the best-practices of large scale development like
the ASF projects.
Thank you,
-- /v\atthew
--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Matthew L Daniel wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 04:41:58PM -0800, Pier P. Fumagalli wrote:
>
> > > On the former topic, we probably need someone who is autoconf-savvy to make
> > > our build procedures for native code reasonably platform independent. Any
> > > volunteers?
> >
> > NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..... Please, let's try to avoid the use of
> > Autoconf/Automake... I HATE those tools, and we don't need them for the 2 or
> > 3 extra unportable calls we have...
>
> If you don't mind my asking, why do you feel this way? I am not trying
> to pick a fight, I am just not really familiar with these tools in depth. I
> did want to learn them because they seemed like a good utility. I just wanted
> to be corrected off-list before I got in trouble for my advocacy later. :-)
They're dirty unix hacks, that's why! :) And because if you use
autoconf/automake under unix, you will loose the ability to have
parallel builds on another operating system wich doesn't support those
(ala Windows or MacOS/X)...
And also there's a slight problem with licensing... AutoConf and
AutoMake are GPL... I am not 100% convinced that we can include them as
a part of our distribution...
Pier
--
Pier Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.betaversion.org/~pier>
--- End Forwarded Message ---
--
Matthew L Daniel Rich bachelors should be heavily taxed.
Internet Director It is not fair that some men should be
SterlingPlanet, Inc. happier than others.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Oscar Wilde
