[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why can't macros be added to autoconf so aclocal **unnecessary**?
|
From: |
Thomas E. Dickey |
|
Subject: |
Re: Why can't macros be added to autoconf so aclocal **unnecessary**? |
|
Date: |
Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:56:37 -0400 (EDT) |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >>> "Thomas" == Thomas E Dickey <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Thomas> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Guido Draheim wrote:
> >> learn about autoreconf et al, and also learn about the
> >> history by which autoconf and automake are independent
> >> and they are not necessarily released in sync.
>
> Thomas> you probably meant to say "interdependent",
>
> IMHO it's neither independent nor interdependent. From the
> user's perspective it's a one-way dependency: Automake requires
> Autoconf and could not work without, but Autoconf can be used
> without Automake (fortunately). I know you know this, so I'm
> probably missing your point.
>
> Thomas> but the relationship as it has evolved is definitely
> Thomas> not a synonym for symbiosis.
>
> Why do you think so?
It's obvious (should I have to explain in detail?)
automake has persistently implemented features which should have been done
in autoconf; retrofitting things to make them work has tied the two,
making it unlikely that said maintainers will produce a version of either
that doesn't rely on details of a particular version of the other.
junk.
--
T.E.Dickey <address@hidden>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net