On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 10:52 -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
> > However using auto* might be easier to maintain and ight lower the
> > entry barrier for new developers
> > cu andreas
> > [1] Compiling exim multiple times with different options requires ugly
> > hacks.
>
> Having just converted another project to automake/autoconf/libtool, I
> can understand the points being made in this thread on both sides.
>
> However, I can also say that as an end-user, I _really_ like the
> consistency of using autoconf-managed packages.
Your experience differs from mine. As an end-user who spends a lot of
time cross-compiling for different systems, I've lost track of the
number of hours I've spent tracking auto* idiocy when a well-written
makefile would have worked far better, with fewer bugs, and been far
less opaque.
Please let's not consider inflicting auto* on Exim. Every time I unpack
a tarball and see a configure script (or worse, autogen.sh or a similar
autoauto abomination) I _know_ that it's going to break horribly.
Sometimes I'm wrong. Often I'm right. Somehow I notice the latter cases
more than the former. :)
--
dwmw2
