Re: [xougen] FW: imake status in Xouvert

[>> G-LiTe /]

Eric Anholt wrote:

> I have yet to hear an argument of what autotools will do better than
> imake in the case of a project that is basically XFree86.  Just using
> the term "flexibility," I have no idea what you're referring to.  Again,
> a summary of the current imake build system is that it exists, is fast,
> is very portable, and is relatively easy to maintain (IMO).  Oh, and
> from the perspective of a package maintainer it has fewer dependencies
> (perl, which I believe is not true of current CVS, compared to autotools
> which would require automake, autoconf, libtool, and gmake at least)
>  
That is only to the developer unless the end user or packager wants to 
create the configure scripts himself. (Or some of the helper scripts in 
Xouvert's source package are symlinks or not included at all, which is a 
bad idea anyways)
Even then, most of the time it'll only matter to developers creating new 
options or modules which means including options and checks to the 
configure script.
Still, I agree, autotools has not been proven any better than imake so far.
--
> > G-LiTe /
<address@hidden>
--