On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:11:26PM +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
Let's ask undogmatically: What would be the reason for converting CLN? The user who wants to compile the library is confronted with the well-known configure / make / make install steps.
The developer will have to remember that Makefile.devel will have to be used instead of autoreconf. Big deal.
Autoconf *can* be used without automake (e.g., one could write Makefile.in manually), and some major open-source projects (such as GCC and Mozilla) do use it in such a way (but CLN's Makefile.in is just wrong, see my previous mail). The reason why autoreconf fails is some buggy m4 macros used by CLN. So I wonder why you are insisting on not using standard tool (autoreconf) instead of fixing those macros? -- All science is either physics or stamp collecting.