[1687] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: something useful
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Sat Aug 31 00:55:15 1996
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 00:55:09 -0400
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
To: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@cygnus.com>
Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>, Kev <klmitch@MIT.EDU>, krbdev@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Ken Raeburn's message of 31 Aug 1996 00:34:30 -0400,
<tx120go8949.fsf@cygnus.com>
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@cygnus.com>
Date: 31 Aug 1996 00:34:30 -0400
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.
Yes, I agree 100%. I'm hoping that the autoconf maintainers will be
reasonable, and take reasonable extensions to autoconf. Then again, I'm
not sure we've ever gotten any acks for some of our other proposed
extensions to autoconf, so it's not clear to me how actively it's being
maintained at the moment.
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.
The other way of thinking about this is that the macro expansion
capability might be something that the automake folks might find very
useful....
- Ted
