Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects

[Peter Eisentraut]

Tom Lord writes:

> * Maintaining the build tools (autoconf etc) is currently too hard.

> * Fork the build utils projects.
>
> Let's (more formally) identify a _small, finite_ set of GNU packages
> that should be maintained in such a way that they can be built in many
> environments (or for native GNU systems), even if no other GNU tools
> are already installed.  Call this set the "bootstrap packages".

So you are proposing to trade in end user convenience (package builds on
any system "out of the box") for autotools maintainer convenience
(maintainers can assume a fixed environment).  I don't think that's a good
idea.  It goes completely contrary to the goals of the autotools.

In fact, I don't even believe the premise that the Autotools are
particularly hard to maintain to the point that it hinders progress.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   address@hidden