httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Configure
Date Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:36:14 GMT
"Ralf S. Engelschall" wrote:
> In article <> you wrote:
> > Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ah. This really ought to be triggered by the existence of autoconf, or
> >> > it doesn't actually help much (after the first time), does it?
> >>
> >> In my sleepy haze (I work on Hawaiian time on weekends), I can't quite
> >> parse this. Are you saying that we should be checking for the
> >> existence of autoconf first so that error messages are sane?
> >>
> >> I agree. I'm not sure whether it's worth the effort to fix up
> >> Configure too much if we're placing the whole ball with autoconf. I'm
> >> probably going to make autoconf my next project, so hopefully this
> >> isn't too far away.
> >
> > No, what I mean is that if you have autoconf, you should _always_ run
> > it, not just when there's no configure. I've fixed it anyway.
> Sorry to complain here, but always running autoconf if it exists is not clean
> and falls at least into the area where no distribution files should be
> modified (or if, then a "make distclean" has to be able to restore it). If you
> run autoconf all the time this is no longer the case. Sure, it will usually
> not harm, of course.  But it both slow downs the configure step and is unclean
> practice.  At least I could also accept this approach if "configure" provides
> a --enable-maintainer option. Then it's ok to run those tools. Just my
> $0.02...

Well, I don't really mind how its done, so long as it gets run when its
needed (or I'm at least told I need to rerun it, as is done with




"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi

View raw message