Re: [Mingw-users] Odd configure problems

[Keith M. <kei...@to...>]

Dave Korn wrote, quoting me:
>> Welcome to `autohell'; but note that it isn't autoconf that causes this
>> hell -- it's automake.  (And this is the prime reason why I so utterly
>> detest automake; I find autoconf *alone* to be quite useful, but add
>> automake to the mix, and the nightmares begin).
>> 
>> (And for those who do like automake, please accept that this is my
>> opinion only.  However, I've yet to see a convincing argument that
>> would persuade me to change it).
>
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00081.html
>
> ;)

And quoting DaveK himself, from that very thread:

| "  BECAUSE AUTOTOOLS IS A SCREAMING INSANE MESS OF NIGHTMARE GIBBERISH
| SPAGHETTI NONSENSE THAT WILL SUCK EVERY LAST DROP OF SANITY OUT OF YOUR
| BRAIN WITH A STRAW AND LEAVE YOU REELING, DROOLING AND GIBBERING IN A
| CORNER DRESSED IN RAGS AND ROLLING IN YOUR OWN FAECES.  "

Which certainly would *not* convince me to change my opinion, but rather
reinforces it.  But I'd still say that the real bugbear is automake, and
not so much autoconf.  There *is* a perfectly acceptable alternative to
automake -- it's called a Makefile, plain and simple; but what is the
alternative to autoconf?

Sure, autoconf generated scripts are not a picture of elegance.  Some
developers have said to me that they don't use autoconf, because it is
easier to just write a configure script by hand.  Oh yeah?  And how
many of those hand crafted configure scripts actually *work*, on any
platform other than the one on which their developers wrote them?
I've yet to find EVEN A SINGLE ONE, which originated on *nix, and
will run under MSYS.

IME, autoconf does a pretty good job of dealing with the portability
issues; just don't try to decipher the generated script.  Learn to
read, and interpret configure.ac and aclocal.m4 instead; understanding
of the workings of the generated script will likely follow -- it did
for me.

Of course, there are many quite horrendous examples of how *not* to
write configure.ac out there, (many still bearing the deprecated
configure.in name).  These aren't the fault of autoconf, but rather
are due to poor style, on the part of their respective developers.

Regards,
Keith.