This is what we tried. It turned out that it would have been easier to just bring up a POSIX environment in order to run autoconf semi-natively.
Shap -----Original Message----- >From: "Alfred M. Szmidt"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: 10/25/05 3:05:52 PM >To: "Jonathan S. Shapiro"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "[email protected]"<[email protected]> >Subject: Re: On Compatibility > > It is hypothetically possible to get all of the configured files > right by hand, but in practice we didn't have enough years in our > expected lives to do it. Perhaps you can show us how to do > it. Assistance would certainly be welcome. > >Hack configure.ac, generate configure on another platform, continue >hacking untill port is done. No need whatsoever to have autoconf on >the target system (you could even cross compile!). > > Sure it is. Consider bash. > >So lets consider bash, what is wrong with it? You state no arguments >why it is bad, only that it is based on ksh, which was based on sh and >that it dates back to the beginning of UNIX. > >Emacs must be complete and utter crap if you base things based on how >long they have existed... And you'd be suprised how similar todays >Emacs is to the Emacs that ran on ITS. > > Or m4. Hell, even Stu Feldman thought m4 was crap, and he wrote it! > >Care to give an actual reason why m4 is crap? It does what it does >quiet well, like C, which is infact far worse than M4. > _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
