Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm not sure what there is to expand on. I've looked at 2.50, and it > definitely doesn't look like an unmitigated evil hack to me. It looks > like a collection of tests for various standard things that packages need > to know to compile, put together about as well as I can imagine doing that > for the huge variety of tests one has to deal with. I haven't worked with > metaconfig instead, but I have to say that I find it way easier to deal > with autoconf than to deal with metaconfig.
That was horribly unclear. What I meant to say was that I find it way easier to deal with autoconf output than metaconfig output. (As part of my day job, I maintain a site-wide installation of hundreds of packages here at Stanford.) Perl at least does have a non-interactive way of running configure, making it about as good as an autoconf configure script. Other packages that use metaconfig, like elm and trn, are absolutely obnoxious to compile. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
