Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects

[Bruce Korb]

> So you are proposing to trade in end user convenience (package builds on
> any system "out of the box") for autotools maintainer convenience
> (maintainers can assume a fixed environment).  I don't think that's a good
> idea.  It goes completely contrary to the goals of the autotools.
> 
> In fact, I don't even believe the premise that the Autotools are
> particularly hard to maintain to the point that it hinders progress.

It's a wonderful idea whose time came long ago.  There's a lot of
energy going into contorting shell scripts to live without functions.
Functions were introduced decades ago.  Only hobbyiests play with
such beasts, even if they do it for an employer.  Maintainer convenience
is important because tool progress is impeded by these inane compatibility
issues.  The 99% of users suffer reduced functionality while the
1% of users play with the systems that would be affected.  If this is
contrary to the goals of autotools, perhaps autotool goals need
some realignment.