RE: [xougen] imake status in Xouvert

[David Ross]

> 
> On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 22:40, William Lahti wrote:
> > On Saturday 30 August 2003 2:50 am, David Ross wrote:
> > > Howdy everybody,
> > >
> > > I was wondering what, if anything we will be doing with 
> imake?  This 
> > > seems to be a rather controversial position, but I think 
> we need, or 
> > > should have a "general position".
> > 
> > We will be moving portions off to another build system, probably 
> > autotools,
> > slowly. No need to do it all at once really.
> > 
> Hi 
> insted of making a fuss over imake vs auto tools why cant it 
> be like this 
> use auto tools on platform where it is supported ad imake on 
> others which doesn't. Also as we are slowly moving towards 
> the auto tools once we write the makefile the changes that 
> need to be made will be very less.so the maintainence will 
> also be not be very difficult. -suman
> 
It seems to me that our "general position" is that we are staying with
imake, mostly because it works and works well on so many different
platforms.

I think we all agree that a Linux style configuration for the system
would be good.  For those of  us who want, or are able, to manually edit
(a) configuration file(s) that should be an option.   But we need to
have an interactive system for users, like my sister, who would be too
scared to dig around in text files here or there.  Or users like me who
are tooo lazy to that too.  Remember the old days when you had to
manually configure x with dot clocks etc etc?

And secondly, if the c-pre-processor is now incompatible with the imake
system, we could simply make a  replacement, and perhaps solve other
problems with using the cpp like having to put the # directives in the
first column.  Or we could just "toss" the Autotools in there as well
.... Imake + Autotools at the same time .... Muhahaha :)


Okay back to the FAQ and packing ....

David