Re: autotools alternatives, is anybody using autosetup?

[Craig Barnes <craigbarnes85@...>]

On 20 July 2012 00:28, Andres Perera <andres.p@zoho.com> wrote:
>by ifdef'd makefile you mean gmake or pmake dependent, or actually
>processing it with cpp? could you show me an example of such a
>makefile that covers the amount of architectures autoconf does? i
>would like to see how it manages to provide compatibility without
>indirection and complexity

I was just giving a packager's perspective in relation to the previous
post. I don't claim to be an autotools expert by any means.

Tools are supposed to be helpful and usable are they not? Project
maintainers are not the only "users" of autotools. Other people have
to endure them too. Despite the effort to make autotools "just work" -
that frequently isn't the case.

I'm not attempting to discuss the technical merits or alternatives as
a maintainer - just giving a perspective as a downstream user - which
I think was made clear by my post and by the post I was replying to.

The last sentence was a bit trollish. I apologize for that.