Re: Autoconf/Automake

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 15, 2006, 22:58 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606160053560.7480@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20060615220534.GL7766@nowhere.earth>

Hi,

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Yann Dirson wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> 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.

The point is: the right tool solves the problem. You can have a tool which is mighty cool, but way too powerful (AKA complicated).

As for CVS: there _are_ a few use cases where CVS is just the right tool. There are many more use cases where git is more than adequate, where CVS is not.

_BUT_: there are cases where something like autoconf/jam/cmake/blablabla is adequate, but I still fail to see why for git, the makefile system should not work. It is the most transparent way to configure a make system I encountered. It is short, concise, and does the job. And I understand it. As opposed to autoconf/jam/cmake/blablabla.

Hth, Dscho