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 course. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com
