Re: A coindience?
> % Most ranting comes from people who
> % understand the auto* tools (proving
> % by writing things like you have to
> % automake installed to compile things
> % you have to know m4 to create autoconf
> % macros) and who don't remember how
> Indeed. For example, the cryptic error
> message that
> he described is something that happens
> automake, not with autoconf. I do
> not use automake so I don't have that
> problem with the various programs that I
> maintain --
> my generated 'configure' scripts run
> pretty much
> *everywhere*, even in places that have
> 'autoconf' or 'automake' installed --
> such as, e.g.,
> the typical IRIX or AIX system.
> He whangs on autoconf when the real
> problem is
> automake. Typical of someone who doesn't
> understand the tool -- he picked on the
> (This is not to say that autoconf isn't
> hairy enough
> as it is! Just that blaming 'autoconf'
> for the problems
> of 'automake' is, as Spock would put it,
I agree with you, even using automake.
I've developed a little game using SDL and it compiles and runs without problems... even in Solaris 8/9. And I'm a auto-tools novice. My be that was my lucky day? Dunno :-)
I cannot understand the article when that dude says you need auto-tools installed in order to make configure run. Well, that's not true (oh, not needed, I don't want to say what's true or false). I can realize just one case: the configure stuff is wrong.
And the fact someone distribute a wrong configure, is that auto-tools' problem? I think not :-)
No matter ant, buildtool, or whatever you wanna use is great... if the developer using it is a jerk, you'll get the same good configure & build environment you had with auto-tools :-)
May be all the problem is auto-tools are not trivial to use, and people is sometimes lazy to read the docs available. I must admit it took me about 3 hours and quite tests to be sure all the stuff was ok.
I don't agree at all with the article and I think your point of view is almost OK.