Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > qinxste> I also took some time to look into autoconf with friends and
> > qinxste> I feel that openssl could really benefit from autoconf rather
> > qinxste> than the current setup
> >
> > Possibly, but it adds another problem: autoconf is pretty Unix-centric.
> > It does not solve any problem on all other OS:es, unless autoconf is
> > ported. And then, you still need quite a lot of work (depending on
> > how complicated your Configure.in is). And believe me, autoconf is
> > definitely *not* an easy piece to port. Imagine translating all the
> > sh lines in there to CMD (NT command interpreter) commands...
> >
> > But to autoconf's favor, it creates Configure scripts that will find
> > out what your environment is capable of, instead of having a growing
> > database of capabilities in the config script itself.
>
> Yes, you're right. I've also to admit that Autoconf is very
> Unix-centric. Hmmm... that's a good point we shouldn't forget...
I think it boils down to the question what tools we want the developer
force to install on his machine. Currently she will need to install
Perl on WinNt which is not provided by default. May we ask the Cygnus
Tools to be installed, so we can use bash and only have to port the M4
macros?
The new build mechanism for Mozilla uses autoconf and the CDK on Win32
to some extend. It might be worthwhile to look there.
But there is more than Linux/Unix and Win32. Are there gnu tools on QNX?
mfg lutz
--
*******************************************************************
Lutz Behnke Tel.: 040 / 766 29 1423
TC TrustCenter for Security Fax.: 040 / 766 29 577
in Data Networks GmbH email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Am Werder 1
21073 Hamburg, Germany
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
