Hi, I do not want to get into a my-conf-system-is-better-than-yours flamewar, but ..
>>"Mark" == Mark Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Mark> Actually, one of these days I *might* just port the perl build Mark> process to use autoconf. Perl metaconfig/Configure asks a lot of Mark> questions to which (1) it already knows the answer (2) the user Mark> *won't* know the answer... The perl Configure may be made as quiet as autoconf is, and as non-interactive, if you wish, at runtime. The option of asking the user remains, and at time the user *does* know better. The verbosity is a matter of taste. I prefer to be informed of what is going on, and am not intimidated by the complexity, and I like the flexibility of a sytem that allows me to pander my curiosity and paronia ;-). Mark> Most perl builds I do I use the gnu-style configure anyhow, so Mark> it doesn't matter much. But yes, I think perl would be *better Mark> off* using autoconf. _Mark_ I believe that the ``gnu-style configure'' is just some options to Configure, which then tries to emulate autoconf. I think that metaconfig's Configure scripts are more powerful that aoutoconf, but that is merely an opinion. I also find it easier to write modules to extend metaconfig, but that could be a matter of taste. All I suggested was that we not dismiss metaconfig out of hand. manoj -- The way to avoid the imputation of impudence is not to be ashamed of what we do, but never to do what we ought to be ashamed of. -- Tully Manoj Srivastava Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim, Phone: (413) 545-3918 A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center, Fax: (413) 545-1249 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>