> From: "David A. Holland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:28:51 +0100 (BST) > > (1) it's a canonical example of the principle that software is almost > inevitably written using tools that are just not quite adequate for > the job. autoconf is written in m4. This is a big liability.
You say poTAYto, I say poTAHto. > (2) autoconf is, or was (but last I looked it hadn't changed) > completely undocumented. That is, there's a lot of random > documentation, but the important part (documentation of the test > library) was completely missing. Not sure what you're referring to here. The latest Autoconf has documentation for the autotest stuff, if that's what you're talking about. > When configure scripts screw up, which is more common than you > probably realize, the user ought to be able to edit the results by > hand *in one place*. It's in config.status. Admittedly it could be easier to read (perhaps we could put that in our TODO list), but it's all on one place. Edit config.status and then run it.
