[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New build process?
From: |
Daniel Colascione |
Subject: |
Re: New build process? |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:16:04 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 |
On 7/26/11 1:00 PM, David Reitter wrote:
> As others have said here, people expect to be able to do ./configure; make
> install.
Sure, but having to run autogen.sh on a project that's just been checked out of
version control is also very common in the free software world, and our actual
source tarballs do contain pre-built autoconf scripts. The problem with a
self-replacing configure script is that, as you mentioned, it'd be hard to tell
bzr to version the placeholder script, but ignore the generated one; solving
this problem by using a nonstandard name for the generated `configure' script
would be surprising. I think our current approach is fine.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- New build process?, Alan Mackenzie, 2011/07/26
- Re: New build process?, David Kastrup, 2011/07/26
- Re: New build process?, David Reitter, 2011/07/26
- Re: New build process?,
Daniel Colascione <=
- Re: New build process?, Richard Stallman, 2011/07/26
- Re: New build process?, Tim Cross, 2011/07/26
- Re: New build process?, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/07/27
- Re: New build process?, Tim Cross, 2011/07/27
- Re: New build process?, Peter Münster, 2011/07/27
- Re: New build process?, Tim Cross, 2011/07/27
- Re: New build process?, Peter Münster, 2011/07/27
- Re: New build process?, David Kastrup, 2011/07/27
- Re: New build process?, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/07/27
- Re: New build process?, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/07/27