We got into this mess by using autoconf. Unfortunately, there is nothing better than Autoconf...yet... :-)
Ryan On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, David Reid wrote: > Huh? Oh, OK I see now. How in the hell did we get ourselves in this mess? If > these are projects they should be self supporting. I'm really not in favour > of having a sub directory. Nor do I really want so many copies of these > things on my machine! > > Sigh... > > david > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 07:19:25PM +0100, David Reid wrote: > > > OK, but let's assume that apr is needed for these. I mean they are based > on > > > apr (apr as in the original plain old boring apr library) right? Then I > > > guess what I don't understand is why we don't simply have the packages > use a > > > script that tells them the location and then just use them... > > > > No, they're not built from APR - they are simply m4 macros or > > shell scripts that autoconf requires. We could expand it to include > > other functionality, but the key here is to support autoconf. > > > > > The script is built by apr and installed, then either used from an > install > > > or from the apr dir if we're in a cvs type environment... > > > > Nope. Can't do that as autoconf needs these files at both generation > > and invocation of the configure scripts. > > > > That precludes any 'oh, hey, look they are here' magic. They really > > do have to be in the local repository or hardcoded paths. -- justin > > > -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
