On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 08:00, Jens Rieks wrote: > On Tuesday 07 September 2004 07:52, Robert Schwebel wrote: > > Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of parrot? > No, its only available on a few systems.
Ok, this is probably a moot conversation because Metaconfig (http://www.linux-mag.com/2002-12/compile_03.html) was written by Larry Wall for rn, and the Perl community has some serious social inertia when it comes to switching to any other configuration tool. That said, autoconf is only available on a few systems. A few being defined as everything I've ever heard of. Seriously, I've never come across any system that lacked autoconf support AND which a high level language like those that would target Parrot, ran on. If you're referring to the number of systems that have autoconf itself actually INSTALLED by default, that's just as moot as the fact that almost no systems have Metaconfig installed. You never run Metaconfig or autoconf as an end-user/installer, you run the resulting [Cc]onfigure script. autoconf (+automake, &etc.) is an excellent tool, and while Metaconfig is somewhat more limited, it too is an excellent tool, especially for handling high level languages. Neither tool is "wrong" for the job, but I expect that people who install Parrot will not be shocked by the classic "-des -Dprefix=/usr" type of invocation.... -- â 781-324-3772 â [EMAIL PROTECTED] â http://www.ajs.com/~ajs
