Re: debbugs, and a FAQ, for Autotools

[Ralf Hemmecke]

On 02/22/2011 11:35 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 22:30 +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> > That Linux distributions usually come with a good set of autotools is
> > irrelevant, since in my understanding all developers of *one* project
> > should work with the *same* autotools versions. Of course, the project
> > might also compile otherwise on different systems, but using the same
> > version of autotools everywhere reduces (needless) incompatibility
> > issues between developers and increases acceptance of autotools. No?
>
> This is very important IF you check in the outputs of the autotools into
> your source repository.

Sure. But it is also relevant if one developer adds a macro which is 
only available in some recent version of automake, say. Another 
developer might not yet have that automake version.

I'm all in favour of considering files generated by autotools as object 
file which should not go into your favourite VCS. But different projects 
have different needs. Some might require skills that are not in the 
realm of C programming. For such projects it might me more natural to 
relieve their contributors from dealing (or even installing) autotools.

But anyway, if a project, comes with a small (and portable) script like 
actually given on

http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/faq/autotools-faq.html#How-do-I-install-the-Autotools-_0028as-user_0029_003f

no developer (whether interested in autotools or not) should fear 
installation of the autotools, because all will basically happen in the 
background.

Ralf