On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > On Friday 07 December 2001 03:32 am, Brent Dax wrote: > > I have no idea how many times this has been suggested. :^)
> Dependency-ish rules, a la make. Maybe even tied into the actual build > itself. I don't think getting them to run in the right order is a problem. > I think *writing* them so that they can be run in the right order is. > <anecdote mode="boring"> > But all I really needed was Perl, so I thought I'd give it a gander. After > all the lifeless GNU-ish configs, the Configure seemed thorough, > informative, and, well, entertaining - only partly due to the seemingly > random, haphazardous order it would do things in. Funny you should mention that, because Perl's Configure does things in order determined by 'Dependency-ish rules, a la make'. Configure is indeed built in just the way you suggest. Dependency order isn't quite enough, alas, but it's very close. There are currently some circular dependencies (mostly in the 64-bit area) that have proven particularly knotty. > random, haphazardous order it would do things in. (But in all fairness to > the GNU maintainers, Perl didn't fair much better. It failed to build > because of preprocessor token concatenation, it looked like, of which > Configure determined it was "Ah, the good ol' days.") Hmm. What version of perl? 5.005 and later require ANSI C, which it sounds like you didn't have. (Very off-topic at this point, so private reply is just fine.) > </anecdote> -- Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Physics Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042