[lug] OT: Makefile oddity

[D. Stimits]

Tom Tromey wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael J Hammel <mjhammel at graphics-muse.org> writes:
> 
> Michael> This seems about right, and one of the reasons I eventually
> Michael> moved my projects (many years preceeding auto-conf) to imake.
> 
> Michael> Note that learning imake is a lot less difficult than trying
> Michael> to learn auto-conf if you already know Makefile formats.
> 
> Let me throw in a good word for autoconf here.  Autoconf isn't as hard
> to learn as you've all heard.  The `autoscan' tool can help a lot.
> There is a lot of documentation on Autoconf available on the web,
> including a few tutorials, the reference manual, and of course the
> autobook.

Due to symbolic links and a number of other reasons, the code is too
much of a mess to even think about it. The fact is that I don't own this
code, and aside from a near guaranteed failure due to current state
(which this arrangement will drastically improve), there is a zero
chance of autoconf or m4 or any other tools aside from make being
accepted.

D. Stimits, stimits at idcomm.com

> 
> Autoconf has some advantages over Imake as well.  They are explained
> in the node (autoconf)Why Not Imake, which, if you're running Linux,
> is probably already installed on your system.
> 
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug