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

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


"Lars J. Aas" writes:
- Eric Schnoebelen <> wrote:
- : 	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.
- Not really true.  You just have to write the Autoconf macro that will
- query the user for values.

	Ok.. But, as you mention, querying the user for values
goes against the AutoConf ideals, doesn't it? (ah well, no
matter really.)

- Nevertheless, most people (just my educated guess) who download and
- build sources off the net are most familiar with the Autoconf way - they
- may not even have encountered any Metaconf-based packages at all
- before they are going to try compiling the newly released trn4-final.

	This is true.  Although a couple of large(ish) perl
based packages seem to be quite talkative out of their

- (perl is usually installed by default on all Linux distributions).
- To those people, the current system will seem very clunky, and that's
- my main argument for reworking the build system.  We need a stream-lined
- setup if trn is ever to take over the world ;)

	Go for it.  All I worry about is getting the
distribution, news server, and organization questions answered.
In this day of NNTP domainated readers, there's not much need
to prod for the news spool directory.

- Btw, does Metaconf set up makefiles that can build the package in
- separate build directories, so you don't have to clutter up the source
- directories with object files and stuff?  That's another thing I can
- hardly live without these days...

	Metaconfig doesn't force much of anything on the end
user.  It pretty much just generates the Configure script, and
knows how to have the resulting Configure script process the .SH
files.  There is nothing preventing the developer from putting
the sources in subdirectories of the current directory, or
anywhere else on the filesystem, for that matter. As for
seperate object directories, I'm sure that's more a matter of
writing the appropriate rules for the Makefiles (which leads to
a dependance upon a particular version of make....)

Eric Schnoebelen
  "Linux is something for Windows haters, BSD is something for Unix lovers"
			      -- Heike S., Febr. 98 

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