Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun

[pip@namaste.stricca.org]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

> Why should I type 
>	./configure
>	make
> ?
> Surely make can run configure for me.

I'm not arguing in defense of, or against any particular kindergarten
of thought, but:

Quite obviously at that point you do not even have a Makefile,
so that would require a bootstrapping Makefile that gets replaced
by the real Makefile that configure generates. In general you might
want to call configure with certain parameters. 

I generally never do a ./configure right away, but do a './configure --help'  
or peruse some config* files to see what options I can pass to configure,
 'cos I generally end up needing an option to install into a non-standard
bin directory, for various reasons like I'm not doing the install as
root or I need to override the default parameters 'cos I'm compiling
a package for a different arch with a cross-compiler.

but that's just me and I'm a weirdo.
-
pip


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1395 bytes --]

From: "rob pike" <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:58:38 -0400
Message-ID: <200007132358.TAA15417@cse.psu.edu>

Why should I type
	./configure
	make
?
Surely make can run configure for me.

-rob