> -----Original Message----- > From: autoconf-bounces+john.calcote=gmail.com@xxxxxxx > [mailto:autoconf-bounces+john.calcote=gmail.com@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Shawn H Corey > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:05 PM > To: autoconf > Subject: Re: A Closer Look at GNU AutoTools > ... > That's because you have forgotten what's it like to be faced with thousands > of pages of technical manuals about something you know nothing about and > all you want to do is a simple task. If you're looking for a tutorial that walks you through the small set of tasks that you personally need to perform, you're unlikely to find one unless you write it. This is just common sense. While there are many task-specific tutorials out there, the fact is, the Autotools are a general set of build tools designed to handle a million permutations of build requirements. The manuals are necessarily complete and generic. > You mean those ASCII diagrams that should be inside <pre></pre> tags? > And you don't think that's crappy? Are they in some way unreadable? The point is to convey information. If they accomplish that task, how could they be better? If the definition of crappy is "they're not polished eye candy", well then I guess they're crappy, but for my own uses they suffice. That said, however, please feel free to submit updated versions of these graphics that have a bit more polish to them. Please don't forget to submit the necessary changes to the documentation build system to make these graphics be properly incorporated into the document, and also don't forget to ensure the final pictures (if generated from source) are in a format that will be acceptable to the wide community of autotools users - probably at least PNG, but don't take my word for it - survey the list and ensure the chosen format is acceptable. See, it's not as easy as it looks - ASCII is probably a reasonable compromise. John _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
