On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:52 -0600, Eric Anopolsky wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:55 +0200, Christian Parpart wrote: > > On Thursday 09 October 2008 12:45:06 David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 04:20 +0200, Christian Parpart wrote: > > > > this now makes use of autoconf/automake/libtool suite, > > > > > > Please, God, no. > > > > > > I will personally buy a licence for GNU make for anyone who needs one. > > > > In that case, you shall know what license automake is under, too, > > and despite your impressions i read above, if you don't want it, fine with > > me, > > but stick to reasonable facts instead of religios talk next time you press > > a > > reply button. > > I nearly tried to make an argument against the autotools last night. > Today, I decided that I would rather explain why I had such a visceral > reaction to the announcement and not try to convince anyone of anything. > > The GNU autotools kept me out of FOSS development for the better part of > a decade. > > They obviously solve a common and important problem, or they wouldn't be > so widespread.
Really, do they? In my experience, they cause more problems than they solve. It's mostly just cargo-cult programming. If you have decent, portable code, and decent makefiles, you really don't need the baroque pile of turd that autotools inflicts on you. If I ever see a btrfs-progs build trying to detect what kind of FORTRAN compiler I have on the system, I'm never going to touch btrfs-progs again. Life's just too bloody short to deal with that kind of crap. -- dwmw2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
