[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: debbugs, and a FAQ, for Autotools

From: Ralf Hemmecke
Subject: Re: debbugs, and a FAQ, for Autotools
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:50:08 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7

On 02/22/2011 11:35 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 22:30 +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
That Linux distributions usually come with a good set of autotools is
irrelevant, since in my understanding all developers of *one* project
should work with the *same* autotools versions. Of course, the project
might also compile otherwise on different systems, but using the same
version of autotools everywhere reduces (needless) incompatibility
issues between developers and increases acceptance of autotools. No?

This is very important IF you check in the outputs of the autotools into
your source repository.

Sure. But it is also relevant if one developer adds a macro which is only available in some recent version of automake, say. Another developer might not yet have that automake version.

I'm all in favour of considering files generated by autotools as object file which should not go into your favourite VCS. But different projects have different needs. Some might require skills that are not in the realm of C programming. For such projects it might me more natural to relieve their contributors from dealing (or even installing) autotools.

But anyway, if a project, comes with a small (and portable) script like actually given on

no developer (whether interested in autotools or not) should fear installation of the autotools, because all will basically happen in the background.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]