Hi, I'm busy with other things but overall I find the content in the discussion very disconcerting.
Taking ffmpeg's so-called configure script as an example. It. Is. A. Pile. Of. Crap. How is *that* script any better than autoconf's chain? Has anyone here actually read it? An autoconf 'configure' script is much more, and I chose my words, friendly compared to that. And did I mention the bugs? Which ones? Honestly, I don't remember because I've never felt like using my memory to store others' stupid shell mistakes. Has anyone in this thread actually called autoconf an issue? You don't have to use automake and libtool simply because you use autoconf. Also note that gnu make is slower than other make implementations because it does more things (including going through rules twice). Obviously if you use automake which does everything to not depend on gnu make but still depend on gnu make elsewhere, you're not gaining much on any front. As for libtool, a couple side-notes again. First it lets you run executables without installing them first (somehow this is called "uninstalled" rather than "not-yet-installed"). Second, it definitely does a lot things wrong but good luck faring better. Obviously, trying to contribute upstream seems impossible just like getting involved with one of the several projects aiming at replacing it. -- Adrien Nader ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
