*) Subversion uses autogen.sh *) APR and Apache uses buildconf *) APRUTIL uses buildconf.sh (I stayed with the buildconf name, but felt that adding the .sh was much more declarative about what is going on)
I'm +1 on changing APR and Apache to buildconf.sh. I'd like to hear about more projects that use the "autogen.sh" style to get a feel for how common/standard that name is. Cheers, -g On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 05:18:15PM -0800, Mo DeJong wrote: > I agree with RTFM! as much the next guy, but it seems > like users might be better off if we renamed > the buildconf file to autogen.sh. Lots of > other projects use a script named autogen.sh. > I am not sure it is a "standard", but why > be different for no reason? > > If this is done, the following patch > would also need to be added. > > Index: README.dev > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/cvspublic/apr/README.dev,v > retrieving revision 1.1 > diff -u -r1.1 README.dev > --- README.dev 2000/12/02 14:45:28 1.1 > +++ README.dev 2000/12/14 01:16:13 > @@ -5,9 +5,10 @@ > developer. If you are building it as a standalone package, however, > this means using a slightly non-standard build process. > > -1) ./buildconf > +1) ./autogen.sh > 2) ./configure > 3) make > > Currently, there is no make install step, as APR is not yet > -installable. > \ No newline at end of file > +installable. > + > > > cheers > Mo DeJong > Red Hat Inc -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
