Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * "Randolph Chung"
> | cdebconf already uses autoconf. i'd really prefer not to use automake if
> | we can. it adds way too much abstraction and in my experience makes the
> | makefiles *much* more difficult to understand.
I would disagree. Properly written automake files are short and way
more comprehensible than a traditional makefile. The only drawback is
that you will have to do it "automake" way, you can't add arbitrary
make code as you like.
For instance, it will be impossible to use a wildcard feature for
specifying source files.
Especially if you have a deep source tree and if you don't need
a fancy build setup, I advise migrating to automake. If you need
peculiar arrangements, it won't work well enough though. For instance
I have a compiler that is compiled and generates C++ code which is
then compiled into a library. I still couldn't fully automate it
in the automake environment I'm testing but the custom makefiles
I wrote used to work with no problem.
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara