Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 90731 invoked by uid 500); 5 Apr 2000 18:15:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 90718 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2000 18:15:05 -0000 From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <200004051815.OAA14022@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: RANT: Absolute Paths and configure To: new-httpd@apache.org Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com In-Reply-To: from "Brian Behlendorf" at Apr 05, 2000 10:52:59 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Well, we do have some/a-lot of what we needed with the old setup. > > Is it time to drop autoconf? To be honest, I think part of the > > problem is that no one here is an autoconf expert, and we're > > fumbling our way through this. At least with the old way, it > > was simple shell, somewhat easy to grok and we wrote it, so we > > were more in tune with it. > > Has someone thought about asking the autoconf developers if any of them > could help answer questions and scrutinize our approach to see if there's > a better way of doing something? > As with my Emails to the libtool people, it's been a black-hole. Absolutely no response. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"