|
From: | Lennart Borgman (gmail) |
Subject: | Re: Emacs vista build failures |
Date: | Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:36:49 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
Johannes Weiner wrote:
Hi, "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> writes:Johannes Weiner wrote:Hi, "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> writes:Johannes Weiner wrote:Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, it should often be fairly straight-forward to use that tool with a thin layer on top to implement the GNU configure interface.It would be cool to have shell libraries you could use for whipping your own configure. I.e. no m4 macros but powerful shell functions you can just call.And once again: If this did not work easily on w32 too it might stop people from using it.To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when designing software.I not sure why you tell me that. I see no reason why I should be interested in your opinion about it. I am interested in getting the free software movement forward and "I know best" attitudes will not help.No offence. You suggested it should work on Windows in a reply to me. So I stated my opinion about it. I am also interested in getting the free software movement forward. I just don't have any idea how that relates to Windows.
Thanks Hannes! Let us keep up the good work.I presented (in this thread I believe) some of my arguments about why to care about w32 too in my reply to RMS about a portable mini-bash. I might be wrong, my arguments might be bad, but I tried to give some arguments.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |