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.