On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:50:36PM -0500, Jay G. Scott wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 01:40:29PM -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote: > > On 8/4/2010 1:23 PM, Jay G. Scott wrote: > >> what's the deal w/ no configure script? > >> > >> you do know that you DON'T NEED autoconf/automake to install, right? > >> they're not hiding behind that old dodge, are they? i'm so sick of > >> that. > >> > >> if i supply a configure script, will you guys use it? > >> > >> every time i try to go to a newer version of postfix, the > >> installation overwrites the previous version. and that > >> interferes w/ my system documentation. w/ a configure script > >> i can install into a safe, stub directory w/o clobbering the > >> existing files. then i can do a proper migration. > >> > >> j. > > The Postfix build system can already take this into account. > > fine. but, c'mon. that's no reason to reinvent the wheel. > autoconf/automake do this in a way that's already > familiar to everyone. if you use the standard stuff > you save everybody grief. this one-off method isn't easier. > or if it is, it's time to package this method and replace > autoconf/automake. >
Having been stuck in autoconf/automake purgatory where due to version requirements and bugs in various versions I ended up manually having to touch all of my Makefiles to get a working build, I appreciate something aimed at the lowest common build requirements. I have built and installed postfix on embarrassingly ancient/ill-equiped systems in less time than it would have taken to download autoconf/..., much less build or port it if a package was not available. Cheers, Ken
