On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 17:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > sure. whats the alternative thou? Real makefiles, explicit selection of such radical options as the sysfs vs. non-sysfs one in bridge-utils and, in general, code which is actually portable and doesn't need the stupid hacks which one often sees autoconf trying to select. The real problem with autoconf is that it encourages stupid behaviour and in a lot of cases leads to bad code and broken cross-compilation. It isn't inherently evil; it's just a tool. But it's a tool which is very easy to misuse. I wouldn't let a 5-year-old loose with an electric drill, and I don't like userspace programmers having access to autoconf. -- dwmw2
