Hi,
I do not want to get into a my-conf-system-is-better-than-yours
flamewar, but ..
>>"Mark" == Mark Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> Actually, one of these days I *might* just port the perl build
Mark> process to use autoconf. Perl metaconfig/Configure asks a lot of
Mark> questions to which (1) it already knows the answer (2) the user
Mark> *won't* know the answer...
The perl Configure may be made as quiet as autoconf is,
and as non-interactive, if you wish, at runtime. The option of
asking the user remains, and at time the user *does* know better.
The verbosity is a matter of taste. I prefer to be informed
of what is going on, and am not intimidated by the complexity, and I
like the flexibility of a sytem that allows me to pander my curiosity
and paronia ;-).
Mark> Most perl builds I do I use the gnu-style configure anyhow, so
Mark> it doesn't matter much. But yes, I think perl would be *better
Mark> off* using autoconf. _Mark_
I believe that the ``gnu-style configure'' is just some
options to Configure, which then tries to emulate autoconf. I think
that metaconfig's Configure scripts are more powerful that aoutoconf,
but that is merely an opinion.
I also find it easier to write modules to extend metaconfig,
but that could be a matter of taste. All I suggested was that we not
dismiss metaconfig out of hand.
manoj
--
The way to avoid the imputation of impudence is not to be ashamed of
what we do, but never to do what we ought to be ashamed of. -- Tully
Manoj Srivastava Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
Phone: (413) 545-3918 A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Fax: (413) 545-1249 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>
