On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 17:14, Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >> IMVHO any kind of repetition of knowledge encoded in rpm and apt >> (or system vendor X package) databases is not tolerable, if it needs to >> be hand-maintained in any way. It's just too much data, getting out of >> date, and too many distributions. >> > > I don't understand. Wikipedia only knows about 242 Linux distributions. > What's the big deal? > > Of course there are at least five *BSD distributions, maybe five > OpenSolaris distributions, Darwin, BeOS, AmigaOS, Plan 9, and Oberon. Maybe > that is what you are worried about? > > It seems that the world would be a simpler place if the world could > standardize on just one distribution such as the one called "Windows Vista". > Then we would not need Autoconf. > Heh. Jokes aside, I figured there's a good chance that the same "project" (ie http://freshmeat.net/projects/{PROJECT} or http://{PROJECT}.sf.net/) provides the same deliverables cross-platform. For example, the libz on Solaris, Redhat, UNIX, and BeOS probably comes from project "libz", and so "libz" or the URL to a libz-maintained translation (ie http://freshmeat.net/projects-xml/zlib/zlib.xml ): AC_MSG_ERROR([Missing component libz probably provided by project http://freshmeat.net/projects-xml/zlib/zlib.xml or package zlib.]) (this message is maintained by the project that is dependent on libz.so, but zlib maintains the freshmeat record or some http://zlib.sf.net/autoconf.xmlfile) Can you see how *this* is static across UNIX, Linux, BeOS, and Solaris? Allan -- allanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "金鱼" http://linkedin.com/in/goldfish please, no proprietary attachments (http://tinyurl.com/cbgq)
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
