Rich Salz wrote:
>
> > My main reservation with autoconf is that I find it difficult to
> > understand how to fix the configuration files - if we're going to adopt
> > it (which I won't rule out), then someone who does understand has to be
> > willing to help us understand it (not do it on our behalf, but explain
> > how we do it :-). IMO.
>
> A valid concern. I think the population of autoconf-aware folks is very much
> greater than the population of Configure-aware folks, so this shouldn't be an
> issue. I'm sure Leonard Foner will help (he's already offered his working
> proof-of-concept code), and I'm glad to help, too. (I have a pretty good
> feeling of what it takes to write portable shell scripts, having written a
> couple-hundred lines as part of INN a few years ago.:)
If the build process could at least be disassociated from Perl, it would be
helpful to those with old systems without the latest Perl, or without any Perl
at all. Perl is even more difficult to setup, and a *huge* download file.
Why be dependent on it?
Autoconf is very complicated (when you want something out of the ordinary),
but at least it produces self-contained distributions.
--
Dimitrios Souflis [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ovrimos S.A., Greece http://www.altera.gr/dsouflis/
>>TinyScheme download site: http://tinyscheme.sourceforge.net/
*** Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
*** doesn't go away (VALIS, Philip K. Dick)
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
