Re: (toplevel patch) Real targets for make.

[Bruce Korb <bkorb at veritas dot com>]

Nathanael wrote:
> Paulo wrote:
> >I would not mind (and might give it a try if I knew it would 
> >be considered good) rewriting Makefile.tpl into Makefile.m4.
> 
> So there's still autogen resistance. :-)  I should cc: Bruce Korb,
> but I won't.

Good.  I wouldn't want to know this.

> I actually quite like autogen, even though I'm not terribly fond of 
> LISP, Scheme, or Guile.

You should know that I don't like them either.
Perl and Python were considered, but Guile won on political considerations.

>  I think autogen does a cleaner, better job of 
> autogenerating files than any other tool I've used, including m4 
> (although m4 is OK).  

Thanks, but I disagree on the "OK" for M4.  M4 rates "OK" for tasks
that are too complex for C preprocessing macros, but not very much
too complex.  It's a small window.

> Personally, I'd probably start replacing most of the gen* programs with 
> autogen-driven scripts if they didn't need to be extremely portable 
> (which they do).

I'd have done similar several years ago, but for that very problem.
However, AutoGen is fairly portable.  There are some who have gotten
it working on Windows platforms.  God bless 'em.  :-)

> In my semi-long-term plans is a replacement Automake built atop autogen.

That's also on my "when I have copious spare time" list....

> So please don't take away my Makefile.tpl. :-)

:-)

Cheers,
	Bruce

C.F.: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-11/msg01137.html