Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Bruce Korb wrote:

Harlan Stenn wrote:

For packages that are "big enough" (ie, that have a large/slow run of
"configure"), this is an unnacceptable solution.

Even small packages with few needs beyond what ought to be simple, vanilla
POSIX stuff require monsterous configs.  Isn't everything "big enough"?  :)

The large size is due to the inclusion of a self-bootstrapping, self-compiling, and fully-obfusticated (try to find it!), lisp interpreter into every configure script. This is necessary in order to observe GNU standards which specify that GUILE shall be the standard language for scripts. Is that a problem?

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/


_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

[Index of Archives]     [GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux USB]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux