Re: Packaging a library that requires cross-compiled code
Joey Hess wrote:
> Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> That defeats the purpose of autoconf, and makes much of automake's
>> functionality redundant. If you are going to require automake, autoconf
>> and libtool installed, why then generate the intermediate steps
>> (configure and Makefile's)? Plus it defeats another goal of autotools:
>> only developers should have it installed, not end users.
>> If you go down that road, you'll end up with something like scons.
> .. or debhelper
I don't really see why.