Status of libtool 2.2.X?

[Conrad Meyer]

On Wednesday 03 December 2008 01:31:20 am Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 10:22 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 22:28 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote:
> > >> I would add:
> > >>
> > >> * do not start new projects using autotools as far as possible
> > >
> > > I would recommend you to stop spreading FUD.
> >
> > What FUD?
> >
> > There's an alternative which is:
> > * easier to learn,
> > * more portable,
> > * more backwards-compatible (with its own previous versions),
> > * faster,
> > * generating nicer makefiles (progress percentages, color output),
> > * designed in a better way (information is kept in central places instead
> > of being copied into hundreds of projects),
> > * used by more and more software, including big projects like KDE 4.
> >
> > It's called CMake.
>
> See, all FUD, you simply are spraying hatred against something you don't
> understand or don't want to understand.
>
> To me, cmake is
> * not easier to learn, just different

Learning a new thing is always different. He's not telling you it's easier for 
*you* to learn something new than something *you* already know, but that it's 
easier for someone unfamiliar with autotools nor CMake to learn CMake than 
autotools.

> * non-portable/inflexible.

"FUD! FUD!"

> * overladden with non-helpful gimmicks like progress percentages and
> color output

Agreed, but it's not like they get in the way.

> * a crack ridden design (using a central database), reinvention of
> imake, comprising it's design flaws.

Reinvention of build-system-tools-in-general. Like a new version of autotools 
(they don't pretend to be backwards compatible).

> * a kde proprietary tool.

Uh, what?

Regards,
-- 
Conrad Meyer <konrad at tylerc.org>