Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > with more than one source file I felt a need to have > Makefile for compiling. So I had a look at autoconf > as used in BBDB. > > Basically its now all running here, i.e. generation of > configure, Makefile, ... > > However, I think we should move xtla*.el to a subdir lisp. > Would be fun actually using this advanced feature of tla ;c) > > Any comments?
I have never used autoconf before. So I have no experience with it. It is fine, if you have the knowledge to use it. However, I have some remarks: * It should be possible to use xtla without the need of autoconf Is this achievable? What are the drawbacks besides no bytecompiled files? * What about users without autoconf (e.g. users on Microsoft Windows) -- Stefan.
