[GiNaC-list] autoreconf vs Makefile.devel (questions about CLN build system)

[Sheplyakov Alexei]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:11:26PM +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:

> Let's ask undogmatically: What would be the reason for converting CLN? 
> The user who wants to compile the library is confronted with the 
> well-known configure / make / make install steps.

> The developer will have to remember that Makefile.devel will have to
> be used instead of autoreconf. Big deal.

Autoconf *can* be used without automake (e.g., one could write Makefile.in
manually), and some major open-source projects (such as GCC and Mozilla)
do use it in such a way (but CLN's Makefile.in is just wrong, see my previous
mail). The reason why autoreconf fails is some buggy m4 macros used
by CLN. So I wonder why you are insisting on not using standard tool 
(autoreconf) instead of fixing those macros?


-- 
All science is either physics or stamp collecting.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://www.cebix.net/pipermail/ginac-list/attachments/20060804/d86b3465/attachment.pgp