Bruce Korb wrote: > Dan Kegel wrote: >>It's a shame autoconf's configure scripts are so gross. If they were >>more human-friendly, maybe more programmers would be willing to use it. >> >>Maybe once Posix mandates Python :-) > > Since autoconf avoids shell functions because Bourne shells did not > support it 20 years ago, why do you think this would make a difference? > ;-)
Y'know, gdb and gcc regularly mark architectures as 'obsolete', then remove support for them in the next release. I wonder if something similar could be done for autoconf. - Dan
