Re: Debugging makefiles
>>>>> "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <email@example.com> writes:
> Previously Brian May wrote:
>> Regardless, I personally like autoconf, automake, and libtool. It makes
>> it easier to have a consistant and full featured build interface to my
> It depends on your needs I guess. I find automake useless for anything
> that is not trivial. The day I replaced the dpkg buildsystem with a
> simple nice Makefile system that no longer used automake was an
> extremely good day.
Hmm. On the other hand, I found automake useless for trivial projects. I
found automake quite useful as the size of the project became
larger. Granted 1.4 had a lot of bugs and poor documentation, but I had
mostly learned to work around them :-). Like you said, it depends on your
One advantage of autoconf/automake/libtool combination is
that the user who downloads a tar ball does not need any tool other
than sh and make.
> I am hoping that a-a-p (http://www.a-a-p.org/) will turn out to be
> a good replacement for autoconf/automake/libtool and friends.
Ganesan R (firstname.lastname@example.org>) | http://www.debian.org/~rganesan/
1024D/5D8C12EA, fingerprint F361 84F1 8D82 32E7 1832 6798 15E0 02BA 5D8C 12EA