2 ms·
I made the suggestion because the Autotools provide a standard way of doing things. If you can shoehorn your project into make distcheck, you're basically done
by georgeorwell 14y ago
I made the suggestion because the Autotools provide a standard way of doing things. If you can shoehorn your project into make distcheck, you're basically done. As you noted above, there were problems with the way he did things that I'm pretty sure would not be there in an Autotools build. Plus, it gives you something expandable instead of a base for more cruft. ./configure is always nice, and any make is about 'automated dependency tracking' so I'm a little unclear as to why that doesn't apply. I guess at this point it's not totally unfeasible to maintain the Makefile by hand.
- endgame 14y agoLet's be honest - the autotools bring a nontrivial amount of cruft to the table, and are regarded as "black magic" by most developers. The automated dependency tracking that I refer to is how automake-generated Makefiles track dependent headers &c. for some compiled languages. That's not at all relevant for the bootstrap project.