[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Remove cdrtools

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:59:24PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 10:58:13AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >> On 12-Aug-06, 09:09 (CDT), Jon Dowland <lists@alcopop.org> wrote: 
> >> > At 1155391794 past the epoch, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> >> > > Btw, why always the autotools while there's this nice
> >> > > cmake? 
> >> > 
> >> > I've never used cmake myself, so I can't speak for how nice
> >> > it is, but autotools (for all its problems) is very
> >> > widespread.
> >> 
> >> So is syphilis. That doesn't make it desirable.
> >
> > Syphilis is a disease. Software usually isn't.
> >
> > In the case of autotools, the fact is that usually it's configure.ac or
> > Makefile.am being horribly broken, rather than the autotools.
> In my experience, this is greatly exacerbated and perhaps even
> primarily due to older versions of autotools encouraging or requiring
> behavior that later versions of autotools declare to be broken.
> The situation is not helped when these mutually incompatible programs
> all prefer to be called "automake" or "autoconf" and, on less helpful
> distributions, do not install themselves as automake-1.9 (etc).

Why should that matter at all?

Autotools are tools for the upstream developer, and have had features to
declare what version the configure.ac or Makefile.am files are supposed
to be used with for quite some time now. You distribute a package that
is already autotooled; the person who compiles the software doesn't need

In case they do, your way of using autotools is horribly broken.

Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Reply to: