Re: Autoconf/Automake

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: Jun 16, 2006, 20:42 UTC
Message-ID: <20060616204244.GH2609@pasky.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20060616201715.GM7766@nowhere.earth>

Dear diary, on Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 10:17:15PM CEST, I got a letter where Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> said that...

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 12:58:30AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:42:40PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > > > As for now, I fail to see why the current system is not adequate for git!
> > > 
> > > I can reassure you, gazillions of people still fail to see why cvs is
> > > not adequate for their project.  And the ratio of devs in the
> > > corporate world not knowning git to those not knowning cvs is far
> > > superior to 2.  And everyone here knows cvs is not more adequate than
> > > git for so many tasks :)
> > 
> > You know as well as I that this comparison is unfair. I am _NOT_ a 
> > corporate person. I hope that you do not judge me as a complete airhead.
> 
> Well, I have to apologize - especially after looking closer at the
> current Makefile.  I think I understand now why autoconf was suggested
> in the first place, but it what it would achieve would mostly moving
> the ifdef's to configure.ac, which would not be such a gain anyway.

Except that then I don't need to bother manually adding NO_EXPAT to the makefile on all systems I compile git on.

Yes, it's not a huge bother per se, but since almost all other non-obscure projects do figure these things out automagically, git kind of stands out negatively here. "Wah, it needs me tweak the Makefile to be able to compile it."

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
A person is just about as big as the things that make them angry.