[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects
From: |
Peter Eisentraut |
Subject: |
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Oct 2002 18:18:39 +0200 (CEST) |
Tom Lord writes:
> But to _extend_ with new features or simpler approaches: that's where,
> for example, depending on GNU Make can make a world of difference.
So you're talking about Automake. I agree, Automake's attempts at
portability are nuts. But for the bootstrap packages you wouldn't even
need a "bootstrap branch" of Automake: you can just supply a shell script
that issues the build commands.
But what were your thoughts on Autoconf? Autoconf isn't going to benefit
greatly from assuming, say, a strict POSIX environment. You could use
shell functions, but I don't see how that would make anything easier.
--
Peter Eisentraut address@hidden
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, (continued)
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Peter Eisentraut, 2002/10/15
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects,
Peter Eisentraut <=
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Tom Lord, 2002/10/18
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Tom Tromey, 2002/10/20
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Tom Lord, 2002/10/21
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Tom Lord, 2002/10/21
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/21
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Tom Lord, 2002/10/21
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, RĂ¼diger Kuhlmann, 2002/10/21
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Austin Schutz, 2002/10/22
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/22
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Tom Lord, 2002/10/22