On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 09:52:01PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 10:58:13AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 12-Aug-06, 09:09 (CDT), Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > At 1155391794 past the epoch, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> > > > Btw, why always the autotools while there's this nice
> > > > cmake?
> > >
> > > I've never used cmake myself, so I can't speak for how nice
> > > it is, but autotools (for all its problems) is very
> > > widespread.
> >
> > So is syphilis. That doesn't make it desirable.
>
> Syphilis is a disease. Software usually isn't.
For those who disparage automake:
* apt-get source tcng
* say a prayer; using multiple pantheons is a good idea
* take a look at its Makefiles
* have a drink or ten
* for x in `find -iname Makefile`;do dd if=/dev/random ...
For those who disparage autoconf, a look at Schily makesystem will
have a similar effect.
THESE are syphilis or worse.
> In the case of autotools, the fact is that usually it's configure.ac or
> Makefile.am being horribly broken, rather than the autotools.
Autotools do require you to do things the way they want, indeed. And
every single autotool uses a different obscure language. Some
consistency would be good -- but, I challenge you: write something
that works better. There's a lot of deficiencies in autotools, but
everything so far is A LOT worse.
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
