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

Re: autoconf

On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 10:35:31AM +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> >>>>> "David" == David Lee <T.D.Lee@durham.ac.uk> writes:
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 05:46:59PM -0700, Andrew Morgan wrote:
> > Approach 1:  (Andrew Morgan): minimal change.  The only Makefile to be
> > changed (i.e. renamed into "Makefile.in" and minor editing) is the
> > top-level one.  All other Makefiles left alone. 
> > Approach 2:  (Steve Langasek and me): change all Makefiles (rename and
> > minor editing). 
> What about Approach 3, which is one step more than Approach 2. Use
> Automake. If readability is the goal, then I highly recommend using
> Automake. Automake makefiles are very small and readable.  

Oh, my God!
automake is the worst possible choice.
It makes files absolutely and utterly unmanageable.

Automake is a completely different beast, it has declarative rather than
procedural language (and very weak, btw).
Any attempts to trace anything in automake-generated files turn out to be a
great pain, and, frequently, fail.


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