>No, but projects are closed, non-portable, and have short life expectancies.
>I run into the "wrong version" issue all the time and if I have to move the
>code elsewhere I still have to write a makefile.  Project manager should
>write makefiles.

Metrowerks is releasing its development environment redone in Java in 
January:

  http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/981209/bi.html

This should be helpful w.r.t. portability.

I still don't see how makefiles help with library versioning problems 
(e.g. libc, egcs, etc., etc.).

>Also, large projects should be developed as a system of sub projects each
>with its own makefile.  I actually have two types of makefiles - module
>makefiles and project makefiles (which just call module makefiles).  I'm
>gonna stay pro-makefile and anti-closed file format.

Yes, I also deal with rats nests of hundreds of nested makefiles 
maintained by multiple people over a number of years.

Again, there are problems with most approaches--it depends on project 
scale, goals, and usability.  IMHO, projects are easier to use.  On the 
other hand, used judiciously gnumake and rpm are very reasonable.  Let's 
agree to disagree.  

Cheers,
-KenD