From: miles@gnu.org   
      
   Zeljko Vrba  writes:   
   >> 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   
   >>   
   > I had several times the "pleasure" of trying to get an autocrap-based   
   build   
   > work on Solaris, for example.  A typical (and far from the only) example   
   is   
   > configure script breaking because it looks for some missing header file   
   even   
   > though that header is not used at all by the program I'm trying to   
   compile,   
      
   So somebody wrote a faulty configure recipe -- that isn't the tools   
   fault (they do not make it easier to write such a bogus check than not   
   write it).   
      
   More generally, _all_ modern build systems are pretty much equivalent in   
   this respect:  they can often work well when well-cared-for, and can   
   bite you if not.   
      
   Cmake/scons/premake/etc are no different -- I've had absolutely   
   miserable experiences simply trying to build packages using cmake,   
   premake, etc.  I think in most cases this was largely the fault of the   
   person writing the build recipe, but it illustrates the point.  None of   
   these systems is immune from being abused, and in my experience, none is   
   has an obviously superior record.   
      
   > Since if I wanted to run autoconf/automake, I first had to install   
   > version 2.59 of something since 2.58 was not good enough.  + IIRC, it   
   > wanted GNU m4, etc, etc.   
      
   If you want to hack on a cmake-using package, you've got to install   
   cmake, if you want to use scons, you've got to install python, etc...   
      
   Certainly the autotools _have_ improved a lot, and were very rough in   
   some ways 15 years ago, and there _is_ grotty weirdness under the   
   surface if you look hard enough.   
      
   But from a user's (developers) point of view, there simply doesn't seem   
   to be a significant difference from other build systems in terms of   
   "usability," and if anything, I'd say the autotools are _easier_ to use   
   than many of the alternatives if your project fits the criteria (i.e.,   
   if you're targeting windows/VS, or want super complex many-directory   
   dependencies, the autotools may not be the best choice).   
      
   -miles   
      
   --   
   Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.   
      
      
         [ 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)