f9f01d58   
   From: miles@gnu.org   
      
   Roman W  writes:   
   > Autotools are a Major Pain, it's almost impossible to figure out how   
   > the build works, or change settings. It's like viewing your Makefile   
   > through a distortion lens, hanging from the ceiling, with head upside   
   > down.   
      
   Hmm, this seems quite inaccurate.   
      
   I dunno what's with all the people who love to whine about autotools   
   -- they're actually quite simple to use.  For people just building the   
   package, the "configure" interface is as easy and straight-forward as   
   it gets -- they basically have to do nothing in most cases.  Automake   
   has a lovely simple and usable input language (much better than most   
   other contemporary build-tools), and autoconf is flexible way to do   
   auto-configuration.   
      
   Granted the _implementation_ (like 57 different languages...) isn't   
   very pretty, but that's almost completely hidden from most   
   users/developers.  The generated Makefiles aren't particularly pretty,   
   but (in the rare case that one actually has to look at them), they're   
   quite straight-forward and easy enough to read.   
      
   [The worst issue with autoconf for developers, I think is   
   traditionally the "wait, which tools do I run, when?!" question, but   
   that's largely been eliminated by "autoreconf" these days (which just   
   "does the right thing").]   
      
   -Miles   
      
   --   
   Rational, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience   
   and reflection.   
      
      
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)