From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22965 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2010 20:57:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 22955 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2010 20:57:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from proofpoint1.lanl.gov (HELO proofpoint1.lanl.gov) (204.121.3.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:57:20 +0000 Received: from mailrelay2.lanl.gov (mailrelay2.lanl.gov [128.165.4.103]) by proofpoint1.lanl.gov (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1JKvI7f029358 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:57:18 -0700 Received: from alvie-mail.lanl.gov (alvie-mail.lanl.gov [128.165.4.110]) by mailrelay2.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B24715FB866 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:57:18 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alvie-mail.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D387D004F for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:57:18 -0700 (MST) X-NIE-2-Virus-Scanner: amavisd-new at alvie-mail.lanl.gov Received: from [130.55.124.157] (manticore.lanl.gov [130.55.124.157]) by alvie-mail.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB317D004D for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:57:18 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Feedback from GSL folks on libflame 4.0 From: Gerard Jungman To: gsl-discuss mailing list In-Reply-To: References: <4a00655d1002171047t4e87fb85w88b609245e3f9a8e@mail.gmail.com> <4B7D90B5.4020707@cs.utexas.edu> <87y6ipozqi.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:57:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1266613086.27033.124.camel@manticore.lanl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2010-02-19_13:2010-02-06,2010-02-19,2010-02-19 signatures=0 Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-q1/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:41 -0500, Robert G. Brown wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Brian Gough wrote: > > > > Thanks for using autoconf. I think it is a good thing. > > Yeah, I don't really think of them as optional these days. They are far > from perfect and often a PITA, but what they do is necessary. You guys are missing the point. The question is not "autotools or nothing" but "autotools or cmake". -- G. Jungman