Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The issues I mention are primarily philosophical and religious. There > is a subversive element of open source society that is willing to use > Autoconf and Libtool, but not Automake. The FreeType and libJPEG > projects come to mind.
Yup, I'm in that category too. Automake makes a bunch of assumptions about how a package will be organized, requires one generate all of one's Makefiles with configure (thus making the configure step and rerunning config.status just painfully slow), works poorly with non-recursive make, and generates incredibly ugly and unreadable Makefiles and compiler output. It does a lot of nice things too, but if you already have a build system that works, switching to Automake doesn't really have a lot of justification and has definite drawbacks. libtool, on the other hand, is pretty easy to just drop in to a regular Autoconf with hand-written Makefiles environment (I've done so on several occasions). > If AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is used, then Automake must be installed in order to > maintain the package, even if the dependent package uses JAM, GNU make, > BSD make, Imake, or hand-coded traditional make. This I'm not too worried about. I generally have Automake around. Just as long as I don't have to use Automake for the package itself when I use libtool, I think this is fine. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
