Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:59:04 Per Jessen wrote: >> >> Dima, should we ever get that far, don't feel obliged to use the >> autoconf'ed version. > > Heh. I hope you'll be kind enough to give me the choice -- most of > them are "run ./configure or go lose yourself in twisty maze of little > shell scripts, all alike".
You'd always have the choice of sticking to version 6. Of course I'd hope there would be sufficient new stuff in a later version for you to be attracted despite autoconf. > With autoconf the main cost is well known build failures on > non-GNU platforms/with non-GNU build tools (where analog currently > builds just fine -- last I checked). If it was up to me, I'd invite maintainers for those platforms to help out with keeping that side of the build up-to-date. How many non-GUN platforms are we talking about? (besides, AFAIK autoconf does a pretty good job on e.g. HPUX and Solaris). /Per Jessen, Zürich +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this list: | http://lists.meer.net/mailman/listinfo/analog-help | | Analog Documentation: http://analog.cx/docs/Readme.html | List archives: http://www.analog.cx/docs/mailing.html#listarchives | Usenet version: news://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.analog.general +------------------------------------------------------------------------
