Mauro Tortonesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 2. Care to elaborate on why you introduced automake in wget? > > it makes the sources __MUCH__ easier to maintain, believe me.
How so? It adds the complexity to the build process, and it makes a crucial build component (Makefiles) almost impossible to understand, debug, and modify. Hand-written Makefiles have served Wget well for years. > 1) the Makefile.in's generated by automake have more functions > (like the very useful make maintainer-clean) Wget has `realclean', which is the traditional name for what is now known as `maintainer-clean' target. I would not object to renaming the target. > 2) automake provides a seamless integration with libtool You don't need Automake for that. In fact, Wget doesn't even use Libtool except for linking with external libraries in a sane fashion. I believe the current level of integration is quite adequate. > 3) with automake is much easier to build the texi documentation and > also to generate html, ps and pdf docs Huh? These things have AFAIK nothing to do with Automake. > 4) automake supports automatic de-ANSI-fication (which personally, > i hate, but many other developers like) Wget has supported that for years. I have no love for ansi2knr, but I like the idea of being able to compile Wget on truly ancient systems. Wget has always been conceived with portability in mind. > is this enough? ;-) Your arguments are convincing if you like Automake to begin with. I'd still prefer Wget to stay away from Automake.
