At 11:47 8/11/00 -0800, you wrote: >--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is an issue the I personally would love to see resolved in a >> separate tool (this is exactly the use case configure solves for >> make). > >I'm not trying to re-open this debate, honestly, but I just have to say >that I find it interesting that you think heading towards something like >"configure" is desirable, just to avoid having a test-for-value. >Personally, I find "configure" to be one of the yuckiest mangled mess of >spaghetti-ed crud I've ever run into (and I've run into a considerable >amount of mangled crud over the years, so that's saying quite a lot).
yep I agree ;). But I also believe make is fairly yucky aswell ;). If it was possible to do a "clean" dependancy tool (ie ant) to replace make I think (hpe ? ;]) that it would be possible to do a clean version of configure tool. Configure is considerably more mucky so that may not be the case but we can try ;) > >2cents & all that, >Diane > > >===== >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. >http://shopping.yahoo.com/ > Cheers, Pete *------------------------------------------------------* | "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want | | to test a man's character, give him power." | | -Abraham Lincoln | *------------------------------------------------------*
