-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Guillaume Melquiond schrieb: > On 2009/2/22, Mark de Wever wrote: >> Which leaves the question who still uses autotools and want to keep using >> that. > > I still use it; and I intend to keep using it as long as it works. > > 1. If it was broken, I wouldn't mind it being removed. > 2. If the goal was to have only one single build system in the end, I > wouldn't mind either. > > But neither seem to hold. So I don't really see the point in removing it.
The point is *really* simple: To generate a tarball that works for endusers when using autotools, autotools have to be used to generate it, or there is no plan configure file. No way to just use svn export and be done. This would be the case when completely relying on scons and/or cmake, nothing extra is needed for those to work. For autotools at least autogen has to be run and the "stray files" have to be removed before bundling. So personally I want to get rid of autotools since it will make releasing a while lot easier for me. Beside this some days ago there was already a report of autotools at least being broken on some mac osx systems (once upon the time autotools were working nicely on OSX, too). Personally I think that noone really wants to look into any of those possible upcoming bug reports, especially if we change any dependencies. Cheers, Nils Kneuper aka Ivanovic -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmhY90ACgkQfFda9thizwWioACfQX5yiE5IoXcgQTFi1cutOT5W CT4An12MGYaLi2e+h396CgS2mLyHY9Ad =fA4a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
