MetaConfig vs Autoconf (was: Why are we still using trn?)

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


Matt Ackeret writes:
- On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Tim Mooney wrote:
- >- 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.


- 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.

	You've just hit on the big difference between Autoconf
generated configuration scripts and MetaConfig generated
configuration scripts.  

	Autoconf generated scripts _know_ they
can find everything they need by groveling around in the
filesystem and prodding at libraries.

	MetaConfig generated scripts _think_ they can find most
of what they need need to know, but like to get confirmation
that what they think is correct.  This was a big issue in olden
days, but perhaps less now.

	However, Autoconf doesn't support the idea of asking the
_anything_.  *Everything* has to be known in advance, and placed
on the configuration script command line.

	MetaConfig *hopes* to interact with the user, so asking
questions like `local distribution' and `organization' are easy
extentions.  And since I added the support for almost
10 years ago, even those questions don't have to be repeatedly
asked when building for multiple platforms within the same

	As someone else mentioned, ``./Configure -eds'' can be
your friend.

Eric Schnoebelen
    "Some of the world's greatest feats were accomplished by people not
	smart enough to know they were impossible." -- Doug Larson

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