Re: autotools alternatives, is anybody using autosetup?
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: autotools alternatives, is anybody using autosetup?
- From: Axel Kittenberger <axkibe@...>
- Date: 2012年7月19日 23:15:39 +0200
> Yes, I have to side with William on this one. From a user
> perspective, the output of './configure --help' is very daunting, and
> the key custom configuration parameters (like where your non-standard
> Lua is) are hidden n the noise.
Did we had the same discussion a few months ago? I'll repeat my point
back then ;-) Yes, from a /user/ perspective who downloads and builds
the application/library this is true. But I really like to hear the
opinion of a distros package manager. From them the noise is useful,
and from what I get they love autoconf built packages, since it allows
them to all the funky stuff they need out of the box like virtual
root. In that case the /user/ as in user will just click the package
from the package manager of his/her choice and never be into any of
the details of building it.
- References:
- Re: autotools alternatives, is anybody using autosetup?, Sam Roberts
- Re: autotools alternatives, is anybody using autosetup?, William Ahern
- Re: autotools alternatives, is anybody using autosetup?, Miles Bader
- Re: autotools alternatives, is anybody using autosetup?, Coda Highland
- Re: autotools alternatives, is anybody using autosetup?, steve donovan