an update to automake-1.11?

[Sam Varshavchik]

Kevin Kofler writes:

> Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> Oh, no!  You mean, the tarball I downloaded from upstream, labeled "source
>> code", did not actually contain the source code?
> 
> It contains both the actual source code and some unreadable generated 
> gibberish which is NOT source code and which is being passed off as such 

Just because you can't read it, it's not gibberish.

Besides, Merriam-Webster defines "source code" as:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/source%20code

"a computer program in its original programming language (as FORTRAN or C) 
before translation into object code usually by a compiler"

You learn something new about configure scripts every day. I didn't know 
that gets translated into object code, before execution.

> (which is why the autotools are broken by design: it's a mistake to 
> encourage shipping generated files in a source tarball).

Oh, ok. Good luck with your quest to change the mind of everyone who uses 
autoconf, to do it your way. Perhaps you'd like to show everyone how it 
should be done. Pick just one moderately popular package, convince them to 
let you own release management, then start releasing tarballs without a 
configure script. Let us know how it works out, but kindly give advance 
warning. I want to stock up on earplugs.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090706/34e6c6f2/attachment.sig>