>> . It automatically generates all the necessary targets in the
>> Makefile.
>
> Depends on your definition of "necessary".
The targets mandated by the GNU coding standard.
>> . It ensures correct dependency handling.
>
> What does this mean? GCC tracked dependencies? They are trivial to
>
On 13/03/14 17:13, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> Well, I will not be participating in that;
>
> :-)
>
>> it's a personal view, but I firmly believe that automake *creates*
>> more problems than it solves
>
> Which ones? Maybe your biased view is related to mingw?
Not entirely. I freely admit that
On 13/03/14 11:52, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> More than three years of a many-man show with autotools.
Apparently ineffectively. It took me around two weeks with the autoconf
manual, to recognize its (enormous) potential, (and about the same, to
identify automake as one autotool too far).
> In co
> Well, I will not be participating in that;
:-)
> it's a personal view, but I firmly believe that automake *creates*
> more problems than it solves
Which ones? Maybe your biased view is related to mingw?
> -- indeed, I don't even understand what problem it does solve.
Out of my head:
. It a
Hi Werner,
Werner LEMBERG wrote on Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:28:43PM +0100:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> Werner Lemberg wrote:
>>> Instead, you might contribute a patch to implement a
>>> `--without-doc' configure switch that completely disables the
>>> generation of documentation files. :-)
>> Why w
hey,
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
|Hi Steffen,
|
|> Then `configure' only needs to change when something changes, like
|> adding perl(1) detection or similar.
|
|It can also change due to different versions of autoconf being used by
|developers; the same functionality represented by differing ex
Hi Steffen,
> Then `configure' only needs to change when something changes, like
> adding perl(1) detection or similar.
It can also change due to different versions of autoconf being used by
developers; the same functionality represented by differing expansions
of the macros. Alternating commit
Hello Ralph,
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
|Hi Steffen,
|
|>> It is a very good principle to put only real source files into a git
|>> repository, and no generated files. I will continue so. My
|>> successor might make a different decision, though.
|>
|> Sure, that is your decision.
|
|It's a
On 13/03/14 06:17, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> This was always an annoyance in CVS; with the recent migration to
>> git, now would probably be a good time to drop the generated
>> configure file from the repository.
>
> I suggest to do that as soon as someone is going to convert everything
> to autom
