Re: OT: useless rant, Was: Building Subversion 1.2 on OS X 10.4 fails
From: K. Richard Pixley <rich_at_noir.com>
 
Date: 2005-05-18 00:11:11 CEST 
Helge Jensen wrote:
 >> What is fundamentally wrong is that autoconf is needed at all.
 Untrue.  There are superior alternatives.
 > Autoconf is the current defacto solution, not because it's "stadard" 
 Not true.  It won because it was written by FSF folks.  It's biggest 
 The user interface to configure was a fine idea.  But the idea that any 
 A superior approach involves listing those configuration parameters in a 
 > Autoconf is not perfect, but perfect isn't really always needed and 
 Of the last 100 packages I've attempted to compile out of the box, 
 > autoconf and automake is actually what allows you to remain ignorant 
 No.  Ports are what make this possible.  Autotools make some ports 
 --rich
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  | 
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.