>Just so we understand each other. I am completely convinced of the >usefulness of "autotools". And your performance measures prove it. But >I >maintain that the use of "autoreconf" is the packager's responsibility. >The >user should only use "configure".
That is certainly the ideal. Autoreconf merely generates the file configure. However, directly using "configure" (as is commonly done with most software) would require that Norm commit to running autoreconf himself when certain changes are made, and then include that generated configure. That commitment would be necessary to ensure that the distributed configure file is up-to-date. But Norm typically does not use autoconf at all. If people run autoreconf themselves, to generate their own configure file, then they can be more confident that the generated configure file works for the current software, and Norm doesn't have run autoreconf himself. I think we can revisit and improve things, but whatever build and distribution process changes are made needs to be something that Norm is willing to accept. Norm has limited time and his own preferences. > And anyway between "autoreconf" and >"configure" I have no idea which of the two optimizes the compiler options. It is actually configure, not autoreconf, that does the optimizations. --- David A.Wheeler -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/9B4F4B8E-09C8-4594-A231-FF30B4B1FFD1%40dwheeler.com.
