httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: autoconf
Date Sat, 28 Jun 1997 02:20:44 GMT
Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > 2. Changing what autoconf does requires an understanding of the gadget that
> > generates the scripts, whereas changing what we do only requires understanding
> > shell and .h - far more common skills.
> > 
> > 3. Failing 2, it is next to impossible to fix autoconf scripts when broken.
> 
> They're really the same point.  But I can't see how it's much harder than
> doing this:
> 
> cp config.h.in config.h
> vi config.h
> cp Makefile.in Makefile
> vi Makefile
> 
> Which is about as hard as:
> 
> less PORTING
> vi helpers/GuessOS
> vi Configure
> vi conf.h
> 

I think that generally there is LOTS more fluff and confusion in
most autoconf's config.h/Makefiles than in our implementation.
If there are specific "tests" we need, then it's easy to add them
to our setup as well. Not only that but we really assume a very
low common denominator with ours as well...

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

Mime
View raw message