At 11:15 AM -0500 12/4/99, Tom Metro wrote:
>seems redundant to have a script wrapped around configure. Again, I'm
>not very familiar with configure, but isn't it designed for this type
>of thing? Couldn't the interactive questions and the optional
>read-from-a-file capability be incorporated into it? (Perl uses both
>in it's build environment, though I don't recall if it uses GNU
>configure or something custom.)
This is the philosophical difference between GNU and Perl configure.
GNU believes that you should go for the 90% of the users that only
need the defaults and just go do that, figuring that the 10% that
need something different know as much and will supply the
command-line options. Plus in the days it took a decent amount to
compile things, you could just do ./configure && make && make check
and go to lunch. :-)
So to answer your question, GNU configure scripts do not ask questions.
> > Why did we do away with the CONFIG file?
>I wasn't aware it was gone. When I built 3.1.3 I ran configure and
It's gone in the 3.2 tree. Loic contributed automake-generated
Makefiles, so we figured we'd just go all-GNU. You may have liked the
CONFIG file, but there were a number of people who asked why we
didn't just do away with it.
>For example, everybody's document root is different. There isn't
>really a meaningful default. So running configure without specifying a
>document root is more like an error condition.
Except there isn't a big need for knowing the document root. For the
most part, ht://Dig could care less where (or if!) there's a
webserver.
-Geoff
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig3-dev mailing list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You will receive a message to confirm this.
