Re: [ST-devel] Re: packaging libst: autoconf and libtool

[Claus A. <sta...@es...>]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2001, Gene wrote:

> I generally agree with you -- autoconf/libtool are good for large
> application projects.  But for a small development library, I think,
> they are overkill.

What about the software that uses state-threads?  I would like to
use it (even though I haven't figured out the license issues) and
I would prefer if the entire system just "automagically" builds on
many OS. Hence I appreciate the efforts to use autoconf. However,
I agree that there should be no performance impact, i.e., runtime
decisions what to use. Maybe some "use these switches on this OS"
cases can be integrated? Currently that's done by hand by selecting
the correct OS target in the Makefile.