lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Karman <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] C implementation [was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency licensing issues resolved]
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:17:41 GMT
Marvin Humphrey wrote on 11/6/11 10:29 PM:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:42:33PM -0600, Peter Karman wrote:
>> Is there anything to be gained by using autoconf and friends?
>> Or asked another way, why would we *not* want to use autoconf and friends?
> Since the C API is going to be Unix only, the only objection I have to using
> Autoconf is that... it's Autoconf. ;)  Have at it!
> So long as you aren't suggesting *replacing* Charmonizer with Autoconf, we
> have consensus and we can move forward.  (If OTOH you want to replace
> Charmonizer with Autoconf, prepare for a long, bloody, morale-sucking battle.)

no plan to replace Charmonizer on my part. long, bloody battle averted. :)

ok, based on this and Nate's good observations, I'm hearing consensus and I'll
move forward with autotools.

Peter Karman  .  .

View raw message