[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs |
Date: |
Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:58:33 -0400 |
>> While I'm not particularly in love with autoconf or automake, my response
>> to people who say that they hate autoconf is: what do you propose we use
>> instead?
>
>The POSIX standard. Everything MH needs in the way of APIs is provided
>by POSIX. By coding to POSIX we eliminate the need for autoconf in the
>first place.
In my view, there are two reasons for autoconf:
- Portability tests (all of those tests that make up the bulk of time it takes
autoconf to run).
- Selecting things like which compiler to use, features to build, install
location, etc etc
If the goal is to remove all of the reasons for the portability tests in
autoconf, hey, that's great. Fully support that 100%. I'm not sure that
will be possible in practice, but there's no reason we can't try.
But what do you want to do about the second set of things autoconf provides?
--Ken
- [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX), 2010/11/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs, Robert Elz, 2010/11/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs, belg4mit, 2010/11/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs, Ken Hornstein, 2010/11/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2010/11/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs, markus schnalke, 2010/11/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2010/11/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs, Jon Steinhart, 2010/11/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] cleaning out the cobwebs, Ken Hornstein, 2010/11/03