apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: Could buildconf be renamed to autogen.sh?
Date Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:40:04 GMT
*) Subversion uses autogen.sh
*) APR and Apache uses buildconf
*) APRUTIL uses buildconf.sh (I stayed with the buildconf name, but felt
   that adding the .sh was much more declarative about what is going on)

I'm +1 on changing APR and Apache to buildconf.sh.

I'd like to hear about more projects that use the "autogen.sh" style to get
a feel for how common/standard that name is.

Cheers,
-g

On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 05:18:15PM -0800, Mo DeJong wrote:
> I agree with RTFM! as much the next guy, but it seems
> like users might be better off if we renamed
> the buildconf file to autogen.sh. Lots of
> other projects use a script named autogen.sh.
> I am not sure it is a "standard", but why
> be different for no reason?
> 
> If this is done, the following patch
> would also need to be added.
> 
> Index: README.dev
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/cvspublic/apr/README.dev,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -u -r1.1 README.dev
> --- README.dev  2000/12/02 14:45:28     1.1
> +++ README.dev  2000/12/14 01:16:13
> @@ -5,9 +5,10 @@
>  developer.  If you are building it as a standalone package, however,
>  this means using a slightly non-standard build process.  
>  
> -1) ./buildconf
> +1) ./autogen.sh
>  2) ./configure
>  3) make
>  
>  Currently, there is no make install step, as APR is not yet
> -installable.  
> \ No newline at end of file
> +installable.  
> +
> 
> 
> cheers
> Mo DeJong
> Red Hat Inc

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message