recating Imake or getting the disadvantages of autoconf.
It looks like reinventing autoconf. I understand your worry about backward
compatibility yet not sure that wrapping Imake inside auto* is elegant. I
believe it's possible to achieve same stability with configure.
Alex
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 02:45:24 -0800 (PST)
Oleksiy Ch wrote:
> Taking all the pitfalls of autotools it should be stated that it
> covers all imake capabilities plus adds a bunch of new features. Imake
> is just static. And this is a big advantage/disadvantage. You look
> only at one side - advantage.
f
that module in compile time that requires some dep that don't want to install.
Why do you pass over all features that autotools give?
Alex
________________
From: Isaac Dunham
To: cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 8:39 AM
Subject: [cdesktopenv-devel] porting on
Oleksiy Ch wrote:
> HI,
>
> I examined CDE it contains ancient Imakefiles. I think it must be
> ported on Autotools as Motif did, but in a more wise way. I made some
WHY??!
> work in this way. Currently I have lib dir ported on autotools
> completely. Actually the main thing is configure.ac, i
step forward. SO what's
special about CDE?
Alex
From: Pascal Stumpf
To: Oleksiy Ch
Cc: "cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net"
Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] porting on Autotools initiative
On
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:43:32 -0800 (PST), Oleksiy Ch wrote:
> HI,
>
> I examined CDE it contains ancient Imakefiles. I think it must be ported on
> Autotools as Motif did, but in a more wise way. I made some work in this way.
> Currently I have lib dir ported on autotools completely. Actually the
