> As for the installer.sh concept, I'm -0, because I feel it isn't needed. > As Pier pointed out, there are still almost as many steps with > installer.sh as doing it manually. Besides, I tend to redo certain parts > at certain times, so even if installer.sh did all steps at once, it still > wouldn't help me much. For example, I tend to run variations on make > clean/distclean/extraclean depending on what I'm doing and how many other > things have changed in the system in the meanwhile... it's pretty easy to > do that by hand and I feel it gives me more control over the thing. > Anyone using a checked-out-from-CVS copy of Apache is probably a > developer, and yet installer.sh hides the output of > buildconf/configure/etc, making it harder for the developers to notice any > problems that might be happening in the build system.
I agree 100%. In fact, I am -0.5 for this script. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
