If xx&&yy&&zz is complicated why not ship a makefile with an install target?
On 25 Jul 2017 9:16 a.m., "Thorsten Schöning" <[email protected]> wrote: > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, > am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017 um 02:28 schrieben Sie: > > > As far as I'm aware, the configure.sh is not platform-dependent, > > It is in a sense that it's arbitrary old code generated on my platform > while obviously each other platform could generate better fitting one > on that platform. That's not just about some older vs. some more > current Linux distribution or version of autotools, but about > autotools on a completely different platform as well, like Cygwin on > Windows, lxss on Windows 10 or whatever. Letting all platforms do > their stuff on their own improves chances that things just work. > > Shipping "configure" and additional stuff does only make sense if no > tools are present and needed on the target system generating those > files on it's own, but even the current docs are named "autotools", > tell people to install autoconf regardless how they build etc. So in > the end we need to change the docs to distinguish between how to build > source- vs. non-source-releases, blow the release archives and so on. > > So what's the actual problem with not including the files automake > includes and tell people to always exec autogen.sh instead? Is it only > because it's unknown to people familiar with "configure && make && > make ..."? Is it only bad practice? > > Don't get me wrong, I just need to revert two commits, but am trying > to understand why it should be a good thing to do so. > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > Thorsten Schöning > > -- > Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: [email protected] > AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/ > > Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55 > Fax...............05151- 9468- 88 > Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04 > > AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln > AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow > >
