On Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 15:28:08, Stefan Reichör wrote: > 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.
Well, the point is, having an configure script for the tar ball (and us) and that one is generated by autoconf. I am sure you all have used configure before and now its advantages ... > However, I have some remarks: > > * It should be possible to use xtla without the need of autoconf > Is this achievable? Sure. > What are the drawbacks besides no bytecompiled files? None. For me it is essential to easily byte compile all modified files in order to see warnings, since they point me directly to incompatibilities with XEmacs. > * What about users without autoconf (e.g. users on Microsoft > Windows) It is also one step towards a XEmacs packages, and then the OS does not matter, at least for XEmacs. And well Alan just pointed out all the advantages ... Bye Robert
