On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:47:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> While the waf behavour does sound quite awful, is this really any > >>> different than the current behaviour of the autotools? The > >>> "configure" script is an unreadable mess generated by the expansion of > >>> macros in the autotools packages; it too bears little relation to the > >>> original macros. > >> But all the original macros are actually present and shipped with the > >> source (or are obtained from some version of the Autoconf, Automake, > >> and Libtool packages), > > You must mean "all the original macros should be actually present" > > because it is not always true, as you seem to imply below. > Er, well, no, I did actually mean what I said. However, I suppose it's > possible that some upstreams are generating configure scripts from local > macros in /usr/share/aclocal that they don't ship with the package. They may omit macros from the tarball because of some other things (starting with a bad tarball generation script). I think I've seen that in one package but that was long ago and I don't remember details. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature