On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:52:01AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > 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.
Well, I have personally no problem with metaconfig, it is indeed much more perlish than autoconf, and that's probably not the worst thing when it comes to a Perl runtime engine. The question is (and that's something I don't know much about) if metaconfig is able to handle cross builds correctly. Not being able to crosscompile Perl for embedded systems was in way too much projects a showstopper for using Perl for me, so doing something against this would something I would probably spend some time into if it makes sense at all. At the time when perl 5 started metaconfig was surely a good thing, but I doubt it can do what autotools is able to manage today. But that's probably a political decision. Robert -- Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 Hornemannstraße 12, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany Phone: +49-5121-28619-0 | Fax: +49-5121-28619-4
