From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 03:03:18 +0100 From: Enrico Weigelt To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] A newbie question... Message-ID: <20080204020318.GF15093@nibiru.local> References: <90a5f1175f3b6d1b52ed32839e2f4901@quanstro.net> <9f3897940802030647r4677d1a7y122292d7d51c42cb@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9f3897940802030647r4677d1a7y122292d7d51c42cb@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 42d7adca-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 * Pawe?? Lasek wrote: > The best thing about autotools is I think the scheme of running > configure - AFAIK mplayer doesn't even use configure for it's script, > instead > they use their own, which looks the same to end user. And saves a lot > of time :-) ACK. The fact that there's such an script with an standardized command line interface is quite good. I which there were more packages providing this interface (instead there a lots of packages providing an ./configure script which isn't only incompatible but even more crap than autoconf stuff, eg. Perl's). BTW: mplayer's configure script is hand-written (in principle a good thing ;-p), but it's incompatible with the GNU style. Rich Felker's comment on this: "we dont want people to mix it up with this autoconf crap" Last time I checked, it also didn't make consequent use of pkg-config (but used it a few times). Rich Felker's comment: "we dont want to require this pkg-config crap" well ... cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------