Tom Tromey wrote:
> I'm curious to know what is so complex about it.
> Is it something intrinsic to XEmacs?
> Or a quirk of evolution?
> Or something else?
It's mainly because autoconf has been in use in XEmacs for a long
time, and the level of customization we want|like|need is|was not available
without understanding and hacking autoconf's internals. This is not specific
to XEmacs as we all know. However, XEmacs goes rather deep in that matter ...
--
/ / _ _ Didier Verna http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/
- / / - / / /_/ / EPITA / LRDE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/_/ / /_/ / /__ / 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel. +33 (1) 44 08 01 77
94276 Kremlin-Bic�tre cedex Fax. +33 (1) 44 08 01 99
- Re: config.cache considered harm... Greg A. Woods
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harm... Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harm... Pavel Roskin
- Re: config.cache considered harm... Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Didier Verna
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Russ Allbery
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Tom Tromey
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Didier Verna
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Russ Allbery
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Martin Buchholz
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Martin Buchholz
