[1685] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: something useful
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Raeburn)
Sat Aug 31 00:35:03 1996
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Kev <klmitch@MIT.EDU>, krbdev@MIT.EDU
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@cygnus.com>
Date: 31 Aug 1996 00:34:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o"'s message of Fri, 30 Aug 1996 18:46:37 -0400
> To quote from the automake info manual:
>
> Sometimes `automake' isn't enough. Then you just lose.
Yes, I know, I've quoted that passage myself. I said long term, and I
meant it.
In the short term, yes, this is probably the best way.
In the long term, I don't think we should be in the business of
maintaining "the Kerberos extensions to autoconf". Any extensions we
can't convince the autoconf maintainers to take, we should probably
rewrite in a form that they will take. I don't know if this is the
sort of thing that they'd take, and at least some of the possible uses
look more like what automake is trying to do (and does poorly at the
moment, from what little I've seen). Maybe they will take it for
autoconf anyways; I don't know how closely the two groups are working
(if at all), nor what the autoconf maintainers might think of automake
in general.
