>> Why the heck should a build configuration tool like autoconf be unable to function without a compression tool like xz? That makes no sense on its face. > At

>> Why the heck should a build configuration tool like autoconf be unable to function without a compression tool like xz? That makes no sense on its face. > At face value, both autoconf and its cousin pkg-config are overly complex dogshit software - both with circular dependencies - that should have been retired long ago in favor of something else. I scream with joy when I use software that uses its own bootstrapper or cmake. Before you think "but I've never had this problem, you must be bonkers" - try building software on a fresh Solaris box with no GNU anything installed and you need to install one of these monstrosities with their circular dependencies. Your hair will fall out before you're done. I've used & seen plenty of the mess of autoconf, thank you. It's a hell I don't want to go back to, and it's a hell a lot of people successfully avoid. But even then, I've also never noticed it requiring compression or decompression, which is partly what boggled my mind at the statement. In any case, the question was: why should autoconf have a hard dependency on xz? Your response to that was autoconf is complicated and has circular dependencies? How is that a response? That was the premise of the question, not the answer.