apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sascha Schumann <sas...@schumann.cx>
Subject Re: Could buildconf be renamed to autogen.sh?
Date Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:59:33 GMT
> > > 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?
> I guess I don't follow your logic there. So, since someone
> else does it incorrectly, the whole concept must be flawed
> from the get go?

    You accused us of "[being] different for no reason".

    All I'm saying is that there is no standard, thus we simply
    cannot be different, because there is no objective standard
    to measure us with.

> Why exactly is it "better" for apr to use a custom name for the
> bootstrap scrip?

    Why exactly is it "better" for apr to use another custom name
    for the bootstrap strip?

> I suggest you go download the source code to gcc and take
> a look at the toplevel configure.in file. Does it change
> your mind about using a configure.in in apr?

    What relevance does that have here? While you bring up GCC,
    it is really beyond me why they still have autoconf-generated
    in CVS.

> Lets face it, people do not read the README.

    That is their problem. I also don't complain to the GCC
    or newlib maintainers that I cannot build their stuff from
    CVS without reading the documentation.

    Let's face it, developers who benefit Apache or APR are able
    to read READMEs. The rest can download a tarball.

    - Sascha

View raw message