Re: smarter makes

[Marc Lehmann <marc@gimp.org>]

On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 03:09:51PM -0700, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@jhereg.perl.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 03:02:58PM -0700, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >> >Wrong.  A lot of systems will not have sh, but may have something like
> >> >pdksh etc.
> >> 
> >> It's hardly my fault of you aren't POSIX conformant.
> 
> >You forgot: the target of Configure is to configure.
> 
> You forgot my original point: the appeal of a simple and unadorned
> call to `make' that automatically ran Configure as need be.

It is nice that all of you have such a nice topic today ;) But rather
than fixing _very_ unimportant _possible_ annoyances, I would rather much
enjoy a ExtUtils::MakeMaker so as to not break the build process when the
Makefile has been rebuild.

_That_ is causing grief to a lot larger number of people, I believe (esp.
when a perl module is part of a larger project that, say, uses automake)

Oh yes, I am not really entitled to voice an opinion here ;->>>

-- 
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg@opengroup.org |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |

---

References to:

Tom Christiansen <tchrist@jhereg.perl.com>

---

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]

---