Re: autotools alternatives, is anybody using autosetup?

[Coda Highland <chighland@...>]

> My general development route is to start out with simple Makefiles,
> and keep them as long as possible.  In cases where just make (with
> maybe some helper shell scripts) are enough, this is nice.  But in
> many cases, this simply doesn't prove to be adequate in the long run.
>
> [and note that one of the best things about the autotools is not
> actually autoconf, but automake, which allows far more concise and
> readable/maintainable makefiles than doing the same thing in raw
> make.]
>
> So I don't think there's really any need for an argument:  if make
> proves enough, then use it.  If it's not, then use something more.
> It's OK to change somewhere down the line if the first choice doesn't
> work out.  Leave ideological purity to the fanbois... :)

This is the kind of pragmatic approach I like. :) Start as simple as
possible instead of overdoing it up front, and add more if you need
it.

/s/ Adam