Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - Automated packaging and package-testing
What packaging does this refer to exactly? > - Automatic support for a wide variety of configuration and build > scenarios, such as configuring or building from a location other than > the source directory tree, or the DESTDIR late installation-location > variable. This has worked with Autoconf-enabled programs (including Wget) for ages. > - Complicated > > I actually don't find this to be true. The arguments to this effect seem > to refer to the generated Makefiles.... but you don't _edit_ those. I think this is the crucial point. If you really find the generated Makefiles to be managable, both in case when you need to edit them by hand (for whatever reason) and in the case when you need to understand them (to tell why something went wrong or to fix a problem), then Automake is the right choice. I find Automake-generated Makefiles to be completely unreadable and immutable. The only ones that even come close are the Makefiles generated by imake, and autotools were supposed to be a step forward. > In terms of actually writing the Makefile.am documents, though, in > general it is actually much _easier_ than writing the plain Makefile > equivalents. As long as what you want to do is supported by Automake, yes. > I obviously wouldn't be looking to make the move for our upcoming > 1.11 release in September; but I would desire to make the move soon > thereafter. Since this was apparently something that some people > felt strongly about, I thought it'd be wise to broach the subject > now, so we have plenty of time to discuss it. So, please speak up! I don't think you will find hard technical arguments one way or the other; at this point the choice seems a matter of taste more than anything else. And as always in such matters, who does the work gets to make the call. Either way, I'll certainly support your decision.
