Alan,
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Alan DeKok wrote: > My thoughts are that the patches are a nice idea, but there's no way > I'm going to re-write the autoconf stuff just before 0.6.1 is > released. My patch is only a suggestion, and thanks for even paying any attention to it. > Also, I'm *never* going to willingly use automake. I understand that one of the drawbacks of automake is its build rules based on naming conventions. This is difficult to comprehend. On the positive side, automake would probably help reduce areas for human errors. Luckily, automake is not employed in radiusd tree and the patch didn't introduce implicit automake rules. I only wanted automake to create symlinks install-sh, mkinstalldirs and missing. It turns out the same can be achieved without adding AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE to configure.in. > So what, exactly, are the benefits of your patches? Fixing some > ltdl installation issues? If so, why not supply a minimal patch to do > just that? The only benefit of the patch as I see is supposedly increased portability of the radiusd build process. I admit this is far from any reasonable application. The configure scripts in subdirectories were not taken care of. > I'd rather see a series of small patches to add functionality > piecemeal, than one large patch which changes everything, and adds a > large number of new things. Agree. Ilguiz - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
