> I've seen all the arguments before; I remain unconvinced. For me, the
> bottom line is that I can't write a really effective configure script,
> without assistance from autoconf; I *can* write a completely effective
> Makefile.in, without interference from automake.
Well, while I like to do a
We have differing perspectives; if I worked exclusively on GNU projects,
perhaps I would have a different POV. However, I do find it disturbing
that a significant number of the problems raised on the autoconf ML are
ultimately identified as automake or libtool failings;
in addition, I get the impr
>> . 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
