On 6 Jul 2007, Bryan Henderson said: >>You may be thinking of config.site > >>(I don't know of a config.make file, and the autoconf manual doesn't >>mention it.) > > "config.make" is my way of referring to the alternative to autotools where > there is a user-specific file, often called config.make, and the > distributed make file does a "include config.make". Is that an *alternative* to autotools? I've seen several autoconf-using projects where configure generates a config.make from a config.make.in, and all the other makefiles just include it. (glibc is one such, although the glibc makefiles, while ingenious, really are head-exploding material.) > Though I haven't heard of config.site before now, I've made plenty of use Clearly documented in the autoconf manual again. I suspect that the real division is that people who read the manual find autoconf somewhat frustrating while people who don't find it incomprehensible... > of the "configuration file" concept with autotools by packaging with the > source code an ordinary shell script that runs 'configure' with my local > set of options and environment variables. I thought it was meant to be > used that way. Oh, I do that as well, but config.site has access to lots of extra data: e.g. it can easily tell if a cross-compilation is underway by comparing $build and $host. -- `... in the sense that dragons logically follow evolution so they would be able to wield metal.' --- Kenneth Eng's colourless green ideas sleep furiously - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
