Re: kernel-devel: should yum install, not update?

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

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