autoconf and epel-5

[Ralf Corsepius]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> These packages end up in a total mess when doing so. There actually are
>> plenty of such cases out there. Almost all packages which still apply
>> autoconf < 2.59 or automake < 1.7 have such problems.
> 
> They wouldn't if the autotools weren't gratuitously breaking compatibility
> all the time.
When will stop to spread your tirades of hatred against the autotools?

 > They could use a compatibility mode, or even finegrained
> compatibility policies, like a certain other build system successfully uses
> for backwards compatibility.  And certain pointless changes could just have
> been avoided altogether.

Languages, such as the "autoconf" and "automake" languages change - This 
is the way of life.

And at some point in their lives, they will have to break with history 
and abandon backward compatibility.

The autotools are not any different from other programming languages, 
such as C or C++.

The only difference is: People silently fix their C/C++ code to meet 
these languages' changes, but prefer to big mouth about the autotools 
change something every now and then.

> They prefer just breaking things.
FUD - How many lines of code has been changed in Fedora because of 
gcc-4.4? Many.