Re: Why are we still using trn?

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


On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Tim Mooney wrote:
>It's been nice to see the traffic in this thread, but I have to say I'm
>surprised by the number of people that dislike the build configuration.
>I too prefer the GNU autoconf-generated configure scripts, but the
>`metaconfig'-generated Configure script isn't as bad as people are
>making it out to be.  If it were, no one would ever be able to get
>perl to compile... ;-)
>You folks do know that you can
>- pass arguments to `Configure' to get it to run and take all the defaults
>  and not ask you any questions (assuming the defaults are all acceptable)
... and so on.

I know that in many ways I'm a "big UNIX geek", but I consider myself
more of a UNIX user than a heavy duty UNIX programmer, so just getting this
stuff to compile was a really big hassle..   (and I remember when I first
got it running it was 'hanging' because it was trying to allocate a
gazillion bytes of memory.. I forget if I had forgotten to clear out my
other site's .newsrc or what.. but it sure was confusing)

If this stuff were even _somewhat_ more automagic, that would be
great..  Having to fill in the 'site name' and such is still reasonable of

This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!

[Index of Archives]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Epson Inkjet]     [Mhonarc]     [Nntpcache]

  Powered by Linux